DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 8-11) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, the examiner no longer relies on Mary and has introduced LI to disclose the amended limitation of “obtain health check details for a producer NF, the health check details including a health check endpoint comprising a network-addressable communication interface of the producer NF, including at least one of a port and a network resource address by which the producer NF receives health check probes”, as shown in the rejection below.
Further, the applicant states the same arguments for the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 by virtue of depending from claims 1 and 11 (see applicant’s remarks; page 10). As such, the arguments are moot for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “at least one of”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. (U.S. 2023/0025799 A1) in view of LI (U.S. 2022/0330085 A1), and further in view of Regnault et al. (U.S. 2021/0068045 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Goel discloses a network function (NF) health monitoring system, comprising:
one or more processors (see Goel; paragraph 0015; Goel discloses at least one processor); and
a memory having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors (see Goel; paragraphs 0015 and 0023; Goel discloses a memory and instructions executed by a processor), cause the one or more processors to:
send a health check probe to the health check endpoint requesting a health status of the producer NF (see Goel; paragraphs 0022, 0031 and 0042; Goel discloses the NSMF sends a request message, i.e. “a health check probe”, to the NRF, i.e. “health check endpoint”, for traffic load level updates, i.e. “a health status”, for a producer NF. The examiner notes that health status may include a load level of the producer; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0008).
While Goel discloses “…a health status of the producer NF”, as discussed above, Goel does not explicitly disclose obtain health check details for a producer NF, the health check details including a health check endpoint comprising a network-addressable communication interface of the producer NF, including at least one of a port and a network resource address by which the producer NF receives health check probes.
In analogous art, LI discloses obtain health check details for a producer NF (see LI; paragraphs 0123, 0125, 0126 and 0129; LI discloses a NF producer attribute including load and a time range. In particular, the NF receiving requests for a specific time range, i.e. “health check details”, and dropping a request due to overload. The examiner notes that according the applicant’s specification, health check details may include a timing interval; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0008), the health check details including a health check endpoint comprising a network-addressable communication interface of the producer NF (see LI; paragraphs 0090, 0102 and 0124; LI discloses a producer NF including an attribute such as endpoint addresses having a service based interface, SBI, i.e. “endpoint comprising a network-addressable communication interface”, that represents how a service is exposed by the given NF, i.e. “of the producer NF”), including at least one of a port and a network resource address by which the producer NF receives health check probes (see LI; paragraphs 0003, 0004, 0107 and 0129; LI discloses direct communication, e.g. messages, between NF consumers and NF producers. The messages include service requests for load information, i.e. “health check probes”, directed toward a URI, i.e. “network resource address” or an address, i.e. “network resource address”, of the producer NF, i.e. “producer NF receives health check probes”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “network resource address” alternative).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Goel and LI because they both disclose features of network functions, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate LI’s feature of direct communication between NF consumer and NF producer into the system of Goel in order to provide the benefit of allowing the status and load level information of producer NFs (see Goel; paragraph 0015) to be received directly from the producer NF in the case where the NF consumers are configured with NF producers “NF profiles” (see LI; paragraph 0004), thus providing more efficient and accurate data.
While Goel discloses “…a health status of the producer NF” and LI discloses “obtain health check details…”, as discussed above, the combination of Goel and LI does not explicitly disclose update the health status of the producer NF in a locally stored list of producer NFs based on a response to the health check probe; and select a target producer NF to send traffic to based on the health status of the locally stored list of producer NFs.
In analogous art, Regnault discloses update the health status of the producer NF in a locally stored list of producer NFs based on a response to the health check probe (see Regnault; paragraphs 0014 and 0021-0023; Regnault discloses load balancing traffic for the network functions, i.e. “producer NFs”, of the NRF and a stored list of the network functions, i.e. “locally stored list of produce NFs”. Ensuring an updated list based on a request for a heartbeat associated with the load, i.e. “health check probe”); and
select a target producer NF to send traffic to based on the health status of the locally stored list of producer NFs (see Regnault; paragraphs 0014, 0021-0023 and 0045; Regnault discloses based on the load balancing and the heartbeat, i.e. “health status”, of the network functions in the list, selecting a network function, i.e. “a select a target producer NF” ).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Goel, LI and Regnault because they all disclose features of a network functions, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Regnault’s feature of updating the health status of network functions into the combined system of Goel and LI in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing the status and load level updates of NFs (see Goel; paragraph 0015) to be done by using heartbeat messages.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Goel, LI and Regnault disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Goel, LI and Regnault clearly discloses wherein the instructions, upon execution by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: request NF profile data for the producer NF from a network repository function (NRF) (see Goel; paragraphs 0022 and 0029; Goel discloses a NF profile being maintained for the producer NF from the NRF); and obtain the health check details from the NF profile data (see Goel; paragraphs 0015, 0029, 0030, and 0040; Goel discloses receiving load level information, i.e. “obtain the health check details”, according to the NF profile from the NRF).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Goel, LI and Regnault disclose all the limitations of claims 2 and 12, as discussed above, and further the combination of Goel, LI and Regnault clearly discloses further comprising: the health check details are included as vendor specific attributes added to the NF profile data (see Regnault; paragraphs 0011, 0012 and 0023; Regnault discloses the network function includes a profile that further includes a list of addresses to services associated with the health status, i.e. “health check details”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Goel, LI and Regnault disclose all the limitations of claims 3 and 12, as discussed above, and further the combination of Goel, LI and Regnault clearly discloses further comprising: the health check details are included in an NFService section of the NF profile for a service-specific health check endpoint (see Goel; paragraphs 0029 and 0040; Goal discloses the NF profiles include a NF service instance, i.e. “NFService section”, for the load level information).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Goel, LI and Regnault disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Goel, LI and Regnault clearly discloses further comprising: the health status includes a load level of the producer NF (see Goel; paragraph 0022; Goel discloses load level updates. The examiner notes that health status may include a load level of the producer; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0008).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Goel, LI and Regnault disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Goel, LI and Regnault clearly discloses wherein the instructions, upon execution by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: send the health check probe at a selected timing interval (see Regnault; paragraphs 0010 and 0045; Regnault discloses a time interval for the heartbeat transmission).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Goel, LI and Regnault disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 17, as discussed above, and further the combination of Goel, LI and Regnault clearly discloses further comprising: the health check details include a recommended health check interval for a timing delay between health check probes sent to the health check endpoint (see Regnault; paragraphs 0010, 0037 and 0045l; Regnault discloses choosing a specific time interval for the heartbeat, i.e. “recommended health check interval”); and wherein the instructions, upon execution by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to adjust the selected timing interval based on the recommended health check interval (see Regnault; paragraphs 0010, 0037 and 0045; Regnault discloses changing the time interval for the specific heartbeat, i.e. “recommended health check interval”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Goel, LI and Regnault disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Goel, LI and Regnault clearly discloses wherein the instructions, upon execution by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: determine whether active signaling traffic is being exchanged with the producer NF, via which the health status of the producer NF is piggybacked onto the active signaling traffic (see Goel; paragraphs 0015, 0029, 0030, and 0040; Goel discloses traffic exchanging between the producer NF); and suspend the health check probe to the producer NF when the active signaling traffic is being exchanged (see Regnault; paragraph 0045; Regnault discloses suspending the health status update).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Goel, LI and Regnault disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Goel, LI and Regnault clearly discloses wherein the instructions, upon execution by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive overload control information (OCI) as part of the health status of the producer NF, the OCI including: an indication the producer NF is overloaded (see Goel; paragraphs 0015, 0022, 0029, 0030, and 0040; Goel discloses indication of producer load level overloaded); an overload control period of validity during which the producer NF is presumed to be overloaded (see Goel; paragraphs 0015, 0022, 0029, 0030, and 0040; Goel discloses indication of producer load level overloaded); and suspend the health check probe to the producer NF based on the overload control period of validity (see Regnault; paragraph 0045; Regnault discloses suspending the health status update).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Goel, LI and Regnault disclose all the limitations of claims 9 and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of Goel, LI and Regnault clearly discloses wherein the instructions, upon execution by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: create a new NF profile, at the NRF, for a consumer NF implementing the NF health monitoring system, the new NF profile including a new health check endpoint for the consumer NF (see Goel; paragraphs 0029 and 0030; Goel discloses new/updated profiles for a consumer NF).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Landais et al. (U.S. 2021/0297896 A1) discloses a NF consumer may decide to communicate directly with a NF producer without using an SCP.
Vaishnavi et al. (U.S. 2024/0329966 A1) discloses a list of service instances where each service instance has an endpoint address.
Yao et al. (U.S. 2022/0182923 A1) discloses each NF service is accessible by means of an interface. And NF services may communicate directly between NF service consumers and NF service producers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 07/28/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights