DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s remarks have been given full consideration, as such this Office Action has been modified in view of Amendments filed on 06/11/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed "REMARKS" on 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that: Regarding independent claims 1, 11, and 20, “Ishikawa does not address the case where P-SEPPs become unavailable after the N-32 handshake is completed by establishing N32-c connections with a plurality of P-SEPPs and testing the availability status of the P-SEPPs after establishing N32-c connections with the P-SEPPs.” However, Ishikawa teaches as such as shown in FIG. 7. The process of performing an “availability status” check of the P-SEPP(s) is depicted in procedure 12 of FIG. 7. [0091] – [0093] describe performing a service request to a P-SEPP after an N32-c connection is already established as shown in operation 1 see [0082], wherein the method includes the ability to perform [0066] a plurality of checks to aid in checking availability in association with connections. Procedure 12 is performing the “availability status” check and procedure 15 is performing the service if available. Similarly, the p-SEPP could not be available to perform the function (become unavailable) after the N32-c connections have been established.
Applicant alleges that: Regarding dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, and 16, “Singh… does not teach or suggest testing availability status of SEPPs after establishing N32-c connections with the SEPPs.” Similarly, Regarding dependent claims 5 and 15, “…no mention in Huang of using PING or any other protocol by a C-SEPP to test availability of P-SEPPs identified in a DNS record after establishing N32-c connections.” However, in response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). For example, regarding dependent claims 5 and 15, Huang is only relied on for the claim language -includes transmitting a packet internet groper (PING) message.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2024/0340978 A1, hereinafter Ishikawa) in view of Krishan et al. (US 2023/0262025 A1, hereinafter Krishan).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa teaches a method for forwarding inter-public land mobile network (PLMN) ([Figure 1] depicts PLMNs in communication via forwarded transmissions/messages) service-based interface (SBI) ([0052-0053] describes a plurality of interfaces that may aid in request messages, i.e. an SBI) request messages to available producer security edge protection proxies (P-SEPPs) ([Figure 7, Procedure 4] a request message forwarded to a P-SEPP), the method comprising: establishing, by a consumer SEPP (C-SEPP), connections with a plurality of P-SEPPs, wherein the connections comprise N32-c connections ([Figure 3/7, Procedure 1] and [0059] describes the connection process between a P-SEPP and C-SEPP, and [0112] describes the hardware configurations of terminal 10, base station 20, and other network nodes 30-1 to 30-12, and 40 may include one apparatus or a plurality of apparatuses illustrated in FIG. 3, i.e. include a plurality of SEPPs, which may be [0082] p-SEPPs, i.e. the ability of connecting to a plurality of P-SEPPs, wherein the connections may specifically be N32-c connections see [0006]); testing ([0066-0072] describes a plurality of testing techniques for a plurality of types of connections), by the C-SEPP and after the establishing of the N32-c connections with each of the P-SEPPs (the process described below may occur after the handshake procedure of the N32-c connection as described above in the “Response to Arguments” section, and shown in FIG. 7 procedure 12, a service request is performed and is therefore checking the capabilities of the p-SEPP and if the p-SEPP is available), availability status of each of the P-SEPPs ([Figure 3, operation 2a/2b] and [0076-0077] depicts a transmitted C-SEPP message to obtain the availability status of a responding P-SEPP, including a reason, as described above the process may also be performed in FIG. 7, procedure 12, occurring after the initial N32-c connection shown in procedure 1); maintaining, by the C-SEPP and based on the testing, an indication of availability status of each of the P-SEPPs determined after the establishing of the N32-c connections with each of the P-SEPPs ([Figure 3] and [0076-0077] describes the status of a responding P-SEPP, including a reason, and [0107-0108] describes Configuration section 730 stores information, i.e. the status reasoning may be maintained. Furthermore, this process may occur after the establishing of the N32-C connection as shown in FIG. 7); and -corresponding to one of the P-SEPPs having an available status ([Figure 3, operation 2a] and [0076-0077] describes the available status of a responding P-SEPP, including a reason); and forwarding the message to the P-SEPP corresponding to the selected target identifier ([Figure 6, Procedure 12] and [0093] c-SEPP transfers/forwards the Service request to p-SEPP, [0151] which may be a transmission which includes a plurality of identifiers).
Ishikawa differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach receiving, by the C-SEPP, an inter-PLMN SBI request message and determining, from the message, a fully qualified domain name (FQDN); resolving the FQDN into a domain name system (DNS) service (SRV) record including target identifiers corresponding to the P-SEPPs; selecting one of the target identifiers in the DNS SRV record-. However, Krishan teaches [abstract] a method for supporting configurable producer network function (NF) Internet protocol (IP) address mappings in association with [0006] traffic between producer and consumer NFs in a security edge protection proxy (SEPP), for data exchanged between different 5G PLMNs. Krishan also teaches receiving, by the C-SEPP, an inter-PLMN SBI request message and determining, from the message, a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) ([0057] describes how if the NF needs to be discoverable by other NFs in a different PLMN, then an FQDN may be used for inter-PLMN routing, i.e. inter-PLMN request message in association with an FQDN); resolving the FQDN into a domain name system (DNS) service (SRV) record including target identifiers corresponding to the P-SEPPs ([0009] a producer NF may publish a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) in its NF profile, and a localized DNS server may translate the FQDN, and [0016] describes an NF profile of the producer NF using an NF instance identifier mapped to a fully qualified domain name (FQDN), via the DNS, with FIG. 4 depicting this operation); selecting one of the target identifiers in the DNS SRV record- ([0057] describes selecting a producer target identifier via the DNS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishikawa to include the use of an FQDN, DNS service (SRV) record, and other target identifiers, as taught by Krishan, in order to [0004] formulate NF discovery requests with query parameters that are optimized for locating producer NFs that are capable of and best suited for providing a service requested by the consumer NFs, via [0006] forwarded traffic performed by the SEPP, and [0009] solve address translation problems via DNS and FQDN support.
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa teaches maintaining indications of the availability status of each of the P-SEPPs includes storing, in a P-SEPP availability status database ([0107-0108] describes Configuration section 730 stores information to be previously set and configuration information and Control section 740 controls an entirety of SEPP 30-12, i.e. the ability to store indicators such as the P-SEPP availability status indicator in a storage device/database), the indications of availability status of each of the P-SEPPs ([Figure 3] and [0076-0077] describes the status of a responding P-SEPP, including a reason).
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach resolving the FQDN into the DNS SRV record includes querying a DNS server using the FQDN as a query parameter and receiving a response from the DNS server including the DNS SRV record.
However, Krishan teaches as such ([0067] In FIG. 4, DNS servers 400 and 402 are respectively located in sites/localities A and B. DNS server 400 performs DNS lookups for FQDNs requested by consumer NF 300 and returns IP addresses that are routable in site/locality A. Similarly, DNS server 402 performs DNS lookups for consumer NF 302 and returns IP addresses that are routable in site/locality B, and [0016] the NF profile, i.e. querying a DNS server using the FQDN to receive the DNS record).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishikawa to include the use of an FQDN, DNS service (SRV) record, and querying a DNS server using the FQDN as a query parameter, as taught by Krishan, in order to [0004] formulate NF discovery requests with query parameters that are optimized for locating producer NFs that are capable of and best suited for providing a service requested by the consumer NFs, via [0006] forwarded traffic performed by the SEPP, and [0009] solve address translation problems via DNS and FQDN support.
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa teaches the use of -weight parameter values- ([0151] describes how a plurality of indicators may contain information such as bandwidth or [0156] a frequency bandwidth or transmit power, i.e. a weight parameter for servers that provide a given service).
Ishikawa differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach selecting one of the target identifiers comprises selecting the one target identifier based on priority and- -in the DNS SRV record. However, Krishan teaches as such ([0080] FIG. 7 depicts producer NF IP address mapping rules 502 are divided into ConsumerCriteria 700 and ProducerConfigList 702, consumer NF can be used to select a rule from ProducerConfigList 702. For example, ConsumerCriteria 700 includes a priority attribute, which has a value ranging between 0 and 255 with lower numeric priority values indicating higher priorities, i.e. the ability for DNS SRV record to include a priority or alike indicator to aid in selecting one of the target identifiers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishikawa to include the ability for the DNS SRV record to include a priority or alike indicator to aid in selecting one of the target identifiers, as taught by Krishan, in order to [0004] formulate NF discovery requests with query parameters that are optimized for locating producer NFs that are capable of and best suited for providing a service requested by the consumer NFs, via [0006] forwarded traffic performed by the SEPP, and [0009] solve address translation problems via DNS and FQDN support.
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa teaches distributing a weight parameter value of an unavailable P-SEPP- -among available P-SEPPs- -to generate adjusted weight parameter values for the available P-SEPPs identified in the DNS SRV record ([0151] describes how a plurality of indicators may contain information such as bandwidth or [0156] a frequency bandwidth or transmit power, i.e. a weight parameter for servers that provide a given service, and [0107-0108] describes Configuration section 730 stores information to be previously set and configuration information, and Control section 740 controls an entirety of SEPP 30-12, i.e. the ability to store indicators such as the P-SEPP availability status indicator, i.e. the ability to store/adjust/update P-SEPP indicators based on a weight parameter to indicate availability).
Ishikawa differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach identified in the DNS SRV record. However, Krishan teaches as such ([0016-0018] describes updating the DNS record with indicators and [0040] FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating an exemplary process that may be performed by an NRF to update NF (and its associated service) profile parameters in an NF discovery response using producer NF IP address mapping rules, i.e. the ability to update/adjust the DNS record with identifiers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishikawa to include the ability to update/adjust the DNS record with identifiers, as taught by Krishan, in order to [0004] formulate NF discovery requests with query parameters that are optimized for locating producer NFs that are capable of and best suited for providing a service requested by the consumer NFs, via [0006] forwarded traffic performed by the SEPP, and [0009] solve address translation problems via DNS and FQDN support.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Ishikawa teaches the system comprising: a SEPP including at least one processor and a memory ([0111] FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary hardware configuration of the terminal, base station, data hub access support, and another network node according to one embodiment of the present disclosure. Terminal 10, base station 20, and other network nodes 30-1 to 30-12, and 40 according to one embodiment of the present disclosure may be physically constituted as a computer apparatus including processor 1001, memory 1002, storage 1003, communication apparatus 1004, input apparatus 1005, output apparatus 1006, bus 1007, and/or the like); an N32 egress gateway implemented by the at least one processor for establishing connections with a plurality of P-SEPPs, wherein the connections comprise N32-c connections ([0006] N32-c: Interface for control plane between Security Edge Protection Proxies (SEPPs) for the initial connection establishment (Handshake) and negotiation of parameters to be applied to the actual N32 message transfer. [0007] N32-f: Transfer interface between SEPPs used to transfer a signal between a service consumer and a service producer after application of an application-level security protection, i.e. an N32 gateway comprising a processor in connection with C-SEPP/P-SEPPs, wherein the connection may specifically be a N32-c connection see [0006]); an availability status check monitor implemented by the at least one processor for testing, after the establishing of the N32-c connections with each of the P-SEPPs (FIG. 7 depicts the described procedures occurring after the N32-c connection, as described in claim 1), availability status of each of the P-SEPPs- ([Figure 3] and [0076-0077] describes the status of a responding P-SEPP, including a reason and [0066-0072] describes a plurality of testing techniques for a plurality of types of connections, i.e. checking for availability of connection status, which may be implemented by a [0111] processor) and an alternate route service implemented by the at least one processor for receiving an inter-PLMN SBI request message, wherein the N32 egress gateway is configured to select- ([0110] the N32 is capable of making selections, mappings, reconfigurations and plurality of other functions).
Regarding claim 17, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Ishikawa teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by a processor of a computer control the computer to perform steps- ([0111] FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary hardware configuration of the terminal, base station, data hub access support, and another network node according to one embodiment of the present disclosure. Terminal 10, base station 20, and other network nodes 30-1 to 30-12, and 40 according to one embodiment of the present disclosure may be physically constituted as a computer apparatus including processor 1001, memory 1002, storage 1003, communication apparatus 1004, input apparatus 1005, output apparatus 1006, bus 1007, and/or the like).
Claims 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2024/0340978 A1, hereinafter Ishikawa) and Krishan et al. (US 2023/0262025 A1, hereinafter Krishan) as applied in claims above, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2023/0232322 A1, hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa teaches testing availability status of the P-SEPPs includes transmitting an availability status check request message to each of the P-SEPPs and determining whether a response to the availability status check request message is received for each of the P-SEPPs- ([Figure 3, Procedure 2a/2b] and [0076-0077] the imitating C-SEPP may check the availability of the plurality of P-SEPPs, and if available, responding side SEPP 30-12r explicitly indicates the application in usagePurpose of SecNegotiationRspData and transmits a “200 OK” status code including SecNegotiateRspData to initiating side SEPP 30-12i, or if unavailable, responding side SEPP 30-12r transmits a “4xx/5xx” status code and ProblemDetails indicating the reason for rejection to initiating side SEPP 30-12i (Procedure 2b in FIG. 3), i.e. transmitting an availability status check request message to the P-SEPPs with a response).
The combination of Ishikawa and Krishan differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach -within a time period. However, Singh teaches [abstract] prioritizing among alternate network function (NF) instances and registering a NF profiles, [0006] in association with a SEPP for message filtering, policing and topology hiding. Singh also teaches -within a time period ([0134] In step 604, the process further includes detecting unavailability of the first NF instance. For example, an NF consumer or SCP that discovered a producer NF instance or SCP may receive an error response or fail to receive a response from the producer NF or SCP within a response timeout period, i.e. the response must be received within a specified time period.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishikawa and Krishan to include a timeout period, as taught by Singh, in order to [0035 and 0006] maintain profiles of available producer NF service instances and their supported services and allow consumer NFs or SCPs/SEPPs to subscribe to and be notified of the registration of new/updated producer NF service instances, and [0044] fulfill the need to define priority relationships among alternate SCP instances.
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa teaches transmitting an availability status check request message to each of the P-SEPPs includes transmitting an N32-c handshake message to each of the P-SEPPs ([0005 and 0058] describes the initial connection establishment (Handshake) of N32 taking into account an application of connection between carriers is possible, according to the present embodiment, with reference to FIGS. 3 to 5, i.e. the status check request message may include transmitting an N32-c handshake to P-SEPPs).
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa teaches transmitting an availability status check request message to each of the P-SEPPs includes transmitting a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) OPTIONS message to each of the available P-SEPPs ([0048] Fig. 1 depicts vSEPP 30-12v and hSEPP 30-12h provide functions on security and integrity for messages (such as HTTP Request, HTTP Response) transmitted and received between VPLMN and HPLMN, in accordance with selecting options or returning functions i.e. messages may be HTTP OPSTIONs messages, and [0059] describes how procedures shown in Fig. 7 may be HTTP OPSTIONs messages to available P-SEPPs).
Regarding claim 13, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2024/0340978 A1, hereinafter Ishikawa), Krishan et al. (US 2023/0262025 A1, hereinafter Krishan) and Singh et al. (US 2023/0232322 A1, hereinafter Singh) as applied in claims above, and further in view of HUANG et al. (US 2018/0176340 A1, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa teaches transmitting an availability status check request message to each of the P-SEPPs- -to each of the P-SEPPs (FIG. 3 depicts transmitting a status check request message to a [0112] plurality of P-SEPPs).
The combination of Ishikawa, Krishan, and Singh differ from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach -includes transmitting a packet internet groper (PING) message-. However, Huang teaches [abstract] a data transmission method in association with a plurality of messages/transmissions as depicted in FIG. 6, and may be associated with the use of [0092] a PDN connectivity service, which is an IP connectivity that is provided by an EPS network and that is between the UE and an external PDN of a public land mobile network (PLMN). Huang also teaches -includes transmitting a packet internet groper (PING) message ([0092 and 0096] describes the transmission of packets between the UE and an external PDN of a PLMN, and the packet may be further transmitted by using signaling. For example, a network connection quantity is tested by using a Packet Internet Groper (PING), i.e. the ability to transmit via a Packet Internet Groper (PING)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishikawa, Krishan, and Singh to include the ability to transmit a packet internet groper (PING) message, as taught by Huang, in order to [0004] aid in supporting data transfer, and [0082] optimize processing needs to be performed on some protocols.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DWYER whose telephone number is (571)272-5121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. EST.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES DWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights