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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/CN2022/122227, filed on Sep. 28, 2022, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202111166931.5, filed on Sep. 30, 2021. The disclosures of the aforementioned applications are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an Amendment Application received on 12/26/2025. In the amendment, claims 1-3, 8-9, and 11-14 have been amended. Claims 4-7, 10, and 15-19 remain original. No claim has been cancelled and no new claim has been added.
For this Office Action, claims 1-19 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s remarks regarding rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been reviewed by the examiner, however, remarks are not found to be persuasive. After review, the remarks have been summarized as follows:
# 1. In McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), the Federal Circuit cautioned the district court "to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims." Here, even the stripped down language, as explained in further detail below, does not fall within "Mental Processes." … Further, the claims of the present invention provide significantly more to the technical field (e.g., after consenting to data invocation of the service consumer network element, a terminal device may exercise a right of revocation at any time. In other words, the terminal device may cancel the consent to data invocation of the service consumer network element at any time, to avoid risks of related laws and regulations) that has not been applied before in computers or networking, and recite patent-eligible subject matter. That is, Applicant believes that the claimed invention points to a combination that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea because the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in communication technology since they address the problem described above specifically arising in the realm of communication networks. As such, the claimed invention provides significantly more than the abstract idea by providing an improvement to the technological operation of communication networks (Page # 10-12).
Examiner Response
Regarding remark # 1, that Examiner has oversimplified the claims by stripping the claim language to arrive at allegedly abstract ideas while ignoring specific requirements of the claims, which examiner respectfully disagree.
Examiner would like to note that examiner did not strip the claim language as alleged by the Applicant, rather examiner explicitly replaced the claim terms with human entities to show how claim steps can be performed by multiple human entities to achieve the results of the claimed steps. Additionally, Applicant also points out steps of claim language in which terminal device may cancel the consent to data invocation of the service consumer network element at any time, to avoid risks of related laws and regulations which have not been applied before in computers or networking so technically Applicant is admitting the fact that claim recite steps which can be performed by human entities however in instant claim, they have been implemented using generic computer elements. Based on this interpretation, examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant that amended claim recites an improvement to the technological operation of the communication networks.
# 2. The method and components recited above demonstrated integration of the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application similar to the claims in Enfish V. Microsoft, 822 F.3d. 1327, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims in Enfish were construed as being directed to creating a self-referential table, are not abstract. Applying Enfish, systems that "receiv[e], by an authorization verification network element in a communication system, a data invocation request message from a service consumer network element in the communication system", wherein "the data invocation request message includes an identifier of a data owner and requests to invoke data of the data owner", determine[e], by the authorization verification network element, whether the service consumer network element has a capability of supporting stopping data processing", and "in response to determining that the service consumer network element does not have the capability, reject, by the authorization verification network element, the data invocation request message" are not abstract. Independent claims 8 and 14 have been amended similarly. Applicant therefore respectfully submits that Independent claims 1, 8, and 14, as amended, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Page # 12-14).
Examiner’s Response
Regarding remark # 2, that currently amended claims recite similar subject matter as disclosed in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. 822 F.3d 1327 (2016), examiner respectfully disagree. After reviewing the details of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., examiner does not see any similarity between the instant amended claims and the contents of Enfish claims which are directed to self-referential database technology. The instant claim is directed to steps of claims that can all be performed by a human-being security officer [i.e., authorization verification human] who is responsible to determine if consumer human-being [i.e., service consumer human] request of utilization of data is allowed or not and if it is not allowed than the request of utilization of data is rejected by the human-being security officer.
Whereas the Enfish's patents assert that the self-referential arrangement comprises of faster look-ups, more efficient storage of data other than structured text, no requirement to model each thing in the database as a separate table, and thus the ability to be "configured on-the-fly."
Examiner would like to further note that Applicant has not elaborated as to how the Enfish claims are similar to the instant claims and therefore, examiner respectfully disagree with the notion that Enfish decision can be applied to the analysis of instant claims.
# 3. The claims include “additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.” … Particularly, the above noted features, as described below in the discussion of how the cited references fail to teach or suggest the claims, are not generally known, are not routine and conventional, are not found in the cited references, and are not found in the alleged abstract idea. The distinguishing limitations constitute the "significantly more" than the abstract idea, and constitute the "significantly more" than the instruction to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (Page # 14-17).
Regarding remark # 3, that “additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more”, examiner respectfully disagree. Applicant’s identified additional element from instant specification [0065] are not recited in the claim and instead the claim recites generic elements to perform beyond routine steps. In order to show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the claims are:
“a data invocation method” (claim 1), “a data invocation apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory” (claim 8), and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (claim 14).
By considering these additional elements, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims do not reflect improvement in the technology. Further, mere automated instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Overall, the analysis of the claims 1-19 demonstrates that limitations are directed to a mental process performable by a human being in their head using a pen and paper in a methodical and orderly manner. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s remarks regarding rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 have been reviewed, however, remarks are not found to be persuasive. After review, the remarks have been summarized as follows:
#1. First, the NWDAF request in Shan is different from the data invocation request message that requests to invoke data of the data owner as required by claim 1.
Examiner’s Response
Regarding remark # 1 that NWDAF request in Shan is different from the data invocation request message that requests to invoke data of the data owner; however, Applicant fails to elaborate as how Shan’s request from NWDAF 105 towards PCF 110 is not similar to the claim language. As mentioned by the Applicant, the request contains information such as “session establishment, modify, and release; UE internet protocol (IP) address allocation and management; configuration of traffic steering at user plane function (UPF) to route traffic to proper destination; termination of interfaces towards PCFs; charging data collection and support of charging interfaces; downlink data notification; and some other functionalities”.
#2. Second, Shan fails to disclose the following feature (b) in claim 1: determining, by the authorization verification network element, whether the service consumer network element has a capability of supporting stopping data processing … Hence, the temporal and spatial validity conditions have nothing to the capability of the NWDAF, and by no means can the PCF determine based on the temporal and spatial validity conditions that the NWDAF has a capability of supporting stopping data processing (Page # 18-19).
Examiner’s Response
Regarding remark # 2, that the temporal and spatial validity conditions have nothing to do with the capability of the NWDAF, examiner respectfully disagree. Shan explicitly discloses NWDAF request message comprises information which comprises various ‘capabilities’ such as temporal validity condition, spatial validity condition, NWDAF transaction ID, QoS parameters, and/or information regarding UE. Additionally, the identified capabilities for example temporal validity condition, spatial validity condition is equivalent to capability of supporting data processing ([0042] D. NWDAF transaction identifier (ID). An NWDAF transaction ID may be used to update or remove the NWDAF request to influence corresponding traffic routing; [0052] At 410, the operation flow/algorithmic structure 400 may include generating a PCF response to the NWDAF based on the NWDAF message. Such a response may be to create, remove, or update corresponding information with respect to the PDU session. In some embodiments, the PCF 110 may invoke dedicated commands, as discussed in FIG. 2, to create, remove, or update service operation at NWDAF 105).
Based on above explanation, the teachings of Shan still disclose the amended claim language and therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 8 recite
“A data invocation apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory … at least one processor to: receive, in a communication system”.
It is unclear for an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand if the claimed apprartus is part of the communication system.
Independent claim 14 recite
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program executable by a computer to enable the computer to: receive, in a communication system”.
It is unclear for an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand if the claimed computer is part of the communication system.
Dependent claims inherit these deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claims 1, 8, and 14 does fall into one of the four statutory categories of “method”, “apparatus”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium storage” claims. Nevertheless, the claim(s) still is/are considered as abstract idea (i.e., Mental process) for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, 8, and 14 recite the abstract idea of:
“receiving, by an authorization verification entity [[network element in a communication system]], a data invocation request message from a service consumer entity [[network element in a communication system]] (Mental process: an authorization verification “human” receives a data utilization message from a service consumer “human”),
wherein the data invocation request message includes an identifier of a data owner, and requests to invoke data of the data owner (Mental process: the data utilization message comprises of an identifier of a data owner who request to utilize data of the data owner);
determining, by the authorization verification entity [[network element]], whether the service consumer entity [[network element]] has a capability of supporting stopping data processing (Mental process: the authorization verification human determines whether the service consumer human has a right/capability of the data being utilized for data processing); and
in response to determining that the service consumer entity [[network element]] does not have the capability, rejecting, by the authorization verification entity [[network element]], the data invocation request message (Mental process: based on the determination by the authorization verification human that service consumer human does not have the right/capability to utilize data of the data owner, the authorization verification human rejects the data utilization message from the service consumer human)”.
The claim generically recites the concept of “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” which fall into the Abstract Idea category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and / or with pen and paper.
For example, the recited steps of claims can all be performed by a human-being security officer [i.e., authorization verification human] who is responsible to determine if consumer human-being [i.e., service consumer human] request of utilization of data is allowed or not and if it is not allowed than the request of utilization of data is rejected by the human-being security officer.
Examiner would like to note that the recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind.
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exception (i.e., receiving, by an authorization verification network element, a data invocation request message; determining, by the authorization verification network element, whether the service consumer network element has a capability of supporting stopping data processing; and in response to determining that the service consumer network element does not have the capability, rejecting, by the authorization verification network element, the data invocation request message) are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional element to perform beyond routine steps. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
In this particular case, the additional elements of the claims are:
“a data invocation method” (claim 1), “a data invocation apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory” (claim 8), and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (claim 14).
Recitation of these additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (instant spec. [0050-0054] discloses that the functions of the disclosed claims can be implemented using generic computer(s)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims do not reflect improvement in the technology. Further, mere automated instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e., a data invocation method” (claim 1), “a data invocation apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory” (claim 8), and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (claim 14)) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
To support this factual conclusion, the examiner takes Official Notice that one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found processors and/or software well-known and routine in technology that involves computers (instant spec. [0050-0054] discloses that the functions of the disclosed claims can be implemented using generic computer(s)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the examiner asserts that the above noted elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not constitute as “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-19 falls into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, recite steps which fall under the Abstract Idea category which recites the concept of “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” which fall into the Abstract Idea category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and / or with pen and paper.
Overall, the analysis of the claims 1-19 demonstrates that limitations are directed to a mental process performable by a human being in their head using a pen and paper in a methodical and orderly manner. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shan., (US20190222489A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shan discloses:
A data invocation method, comprising:
receiving, by an authorization verification network element in a communication system (i.e., Policy Control Function; i.e., PCF 110), a data invocation request message (i.e., the NWDAF request) from a service consumer network element in a communication system (i.e., Network Data Analytics Function; i.e., NWDAF 105) ([0032] FIG. 2 illustrates an example procedure of influencing edge computing involving the NWDAF 105, as well as how the PCF 110 may utilize the information received from the NWDAF. In various embodiments, at operation 1, the NWDAF 105 may create a new request by invoking a request service operation to the NWDAF 105; [0033] At operation 2, the NWDAF 105 may transmit its request to the PCF 110 directly by invoking, for example Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Create Request or Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Update Request service operation, to create the request or update the request; [0037] As above discussed, the NWDAF 105 may provide the NWDAF request to the PCF 110. The NWDAF request may be used for influencing SMF routing decisions. The NWDAF request may include information for identifying where and when a specific data trafficking is subject to certain routing handling),
wherein the data invocation request message includes an identifier of a data owner (i.e., subscription identifier (GPSI) or an internet protocol (IP) address or prefix with respect to the UE) and requests to invoke data (i.e., number of pieces of information with respect to individual UEs or groups of UEs may be included in the NWDAF request) of the data owner ([0038] A. Information to identify traffic. The information may include a data network name (DNN), which may carry the same meaning as access point name (APN) to select an SMF and UPF(s) for a PDU session, and possible slicing information, such as single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI). Alternatively, an AF-service identifier may be used to identify traffic associated with the PDU session. The AF-service identifier may be an identifier of the service whose request is issued by the AF. In accordance, a 5G core (5GC) may map this identifier into a target DNN and slicing information (e.g., S-NSSAI); [0043] E. Information regarding UE. A number of pieces of information with respect to individual UEs or groups of UEs may be included in the NWDAF request. For an individual UE, the information may include an identified generic public subscription identifier (GPSI) or an internet protocol (IP) address or prefix with respect to the UE. For a group of UEs that is identified by an external-group identifier or internal-group identifier, either of the identifiers may be used);
determining, by the authorization verification network element, whether the service consumer network element has a capability (i.e., temporal and spatial validity conditions) of supporting stopping data processing ([0051] At 405, the operation flow/algorithmic structure 400 may include processing the NWDAF message that is generated at 305. Depending on the information in the NWDAF message, the PCF 110 may process correspondingly. For example, if the NWDAF message includes temporal and spatial validity conditions regarding a PDU session, the PCF 110 may identify such information indicated by the NWDAF 105 upon receiving the NWDAF message); and
in response to determining that the service consumer network element does not have the capability, rejecting (i.e., remove the request service operation), by the authorization verification network element, the data invocation request message ([0032] The request service operation may include creating a new NWDAF transaction identifier (ID) so that the NWDAF 105 may update or remove the request service operation as to influence traffic routing. The newly created NWDAF transaction ID may correspond to one or more protocol data unit (PDU) sessions; [0052] At 410, the operation flow/algorithmic structure 400 may include generating a PCF response to the NWDAF based on the NWDAF message. Such a response may be to create, remove, or update corresponding information with respect to the PDU session).
Regarding claim 8, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 14, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Shan discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein
the determining that the service consumer network element does not have the capability is in response to the authorization verification network element receiving no capability indication information from the service consumer network element ([0051] At 405, the operation flow/algorithmic structure 400 may include processing the NWDAF message that is generated at 305. Depending on the information in the NWDAF message, the PCF 110 may process correspondingly. For example, if the NWDAF message includes temporal and spatial validity conditions regarding a PDU session, the PCF 110 may identify such information indicated by the NWDAF 105 upon receiving the NWDAF message), and
the rejecting the data invocation request message comprises sending, by the authorization verification network element, a data invocation response message to the service consumer network element to reject the data invocation request message, wherein the data invocation response message comprises a cause value, and the cause value indicates a cause for rejecting the data invocation request message ([0052] At 410, the operation flow/algorithmic structure 400 may include generating a PCF response to the NWDAF based on the NWDAF message. Such a response may be to create, remove, or update corresponding information with respect to the PDU session. In some embodiments, the PCF 110 may invoke dedicated commands, as discussed in FIG. 2, to create, remove, or update service operation at NWDAF 105. Details of particular service operation may be associated with the information indicated by the NWDAF message).
Regarding claim 9, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 15, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 3, Shan discloses:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the cause value indicates that the cause for rejecting the data invocation request message is that the service consumer network element does not have the capability ([0052] At 410, the operation flow/algorithmic structure 400 may include generating a PCF response to the NWDAF based on the NWDAF message. Such a response may be to create, remove, or update corresponding information with respect to the PDU session. In some embodiments, the PCF 110 may invoke dedicated commands, as discussed in FIG. 2, to create, remove, or update service operation at NWDAF 105. Details of particular service operation may be associated with the information indicated by the NWDAF message).
Regarding claim 10, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 16, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 4, Shan discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
in response to determining that the service consumer network element has the capability, determining, by the authorization verification network element, whether the data owner allows (i.e., based on validity conditions) the service consumer network element to use the data of the data owner ([0053] At 415, the operation flow/algorithmic structure 400 may include determining traffic routing of an SMF with respect to the PDU session based on the identified temporal and spatial validity conditions. It is noted that such performing traffic routing of the SMF may be based on a variety of information indicated by the NWDAF message. Some or all of the information indicated by the NWDAF message may be used in the traffic routing determination. In some embodiments, the determination of traffic routing of the SMF may include determining whether the PDU session is impacted by the validity conditions based on the NWDAF message. If it is determined that the PDU session is to be impacted by the validity conditions, the PCF 110 may request a network initiated PDU session modification procedure to modify the SMF with respect to the PDU session).
Regarding claim 11, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 17, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 5, Shan discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
in response to the data invocation request message comprising indication information indicating that the service consumer network element has the capability, determining, by the authorization verification network element, whether the data owner allows (i.e., User Data Repository (UDR) determine subscription information and based on subscription information UDR allows the use of data to the PCF 100 and generate response to ) the service consumer network element to use the data of the data owner ([0025] The PCF 110 may support unified policy framework to govern network behaviour, provide policy rules to control plane function(s) to enforce them, and/or access subscription information relevant for policy decisions in a unified data repository (UDR); [0085] The UDM 727 may handle subscription-related information to support the network entities' handling of communication sessions, and may store subscription data of UE 701. For example, subscription data may be communicated between the UDM 727 and the AMF 721 via an N8 reference point between the UDM 727 and the AMF 721. The UDM 727 may include two parts, an application FE and a User Data Repository (UDR) (the FE and UDR are not shown by FIG. 7). The UDR may store subscription data and policy data for the UDM 727 and the PCF 726, and/or structured data for exposure and application data (including Packet Flow Descriptions (PFDs) for application detection, application request information for multiple UEs 701) for the NEF 723. The Nudr service-based interface may be exhibited by the UDR to allow the UDM 727, PCF 726, and NEF 723 to access a particular set of the stored data, as well as to read, update (e.g., add, modify), delete, and subscribe to notification of relevant data changes in the UDR. The UDM may include a UDM FE, which is in charge of processing of credentials, location management, subscription management, and so on. Several different front ends may serve the same user in different transactions. The UDM-FE accesses subscription information stored in the UDR and performs authentication credential processing; user identifier handling; access authorization; registration/mobility management; and subscription management. The UDR may interact with the SMF 724 via an N10 reference point between the UDM 727 and the SMF 724. UDM 727 may also support SMS management, wherein an SMS-FE implements the similar application logic as discussed previously. Additionally, the UDM 727 may exhibit the Nudm service-based interface; [0086] The AF 728 may provide application influence on traffic routing, provide access to the Network Capability Exposure (NCE), and interact with the policy framework for policy control. The NCE may be a mechanism that allows the 5GC and AF 728 to provide information to each other via NEF 723, which may be used for edge computing implementations).
Regarding claim 12, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 18, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 6, Shan discloses:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the method further comprises:
in response to determining that the data owner does not allow the service consumer network element to use the data of the data owner, sending, by the authorization verification network element, a data invocation response message to the service consumer network element, to reject the data invocation request message, wherein the data invocation response message comprises a cause value, and the cause value indicates that a cause for rejecting the data invocation request message is that the data owner does not allow the service consumer network element to use the data of the data owner ([0052] At 410, the operation flow/algorithmic structure 400 may include generating a PCF response to the NWDAF based on the NWDAF message. Such a response may be to create, remove, or update corresponding information with respect to the PDU session. In some embodiments, the PCF 110 may invoke dedicated commands, as discussed in FIG. 2, to create, remove, or update service operation at NWDAF 105. Details of particular service operation may be associated with the information indicated by the NWDAF message).
Regarding claim 13, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 19, it is an apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 7, Shan discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
sending, by the service consumer network element, the data invocation request message to the authorization verification network element; and receiving, by the service consumer network element, a data invocation response message from the authorization verification network element, wherein the data invocation response message rejects the data invocation request message ([0032] FIG. 2 illustrates an example procedure of influencing edge computing involving the NWDAF 105, as well as how the PCF 110 may utilize the information received from the NWDAF. In various embodiments, at operation 1, the NWDAF 105 may create a new request by invoking a request service operation to the NWDAF 105; [0037] As above discussed, the NWDAF 105 may provide the NWDAF request to the PCF 110. The NWDAF request may be used for influencing SMF routing decisions. The NWDAF request may include information for identifying where and when a specific data trafficking is subject to certain routing handling. Such routing handling may be for edge computing or other purposes).
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 SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491