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
This Action is in response to application/ communications filed on 04/25/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 9 and 16 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract recites acronyms “NRF” (see line 1) and “NF” (see line 2) without abbreviation. Examiner suggests abbreviating them prior to their first usage.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “producer network nodes” in lines 12 and 14. Claim 1 then recites the limitation “the producer network nodes” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which one of “producer network nodes” (the one in line 12 or the one in line 14) is being referred back to in line 16. To fix the antecedent issue, examiner suggests amending line 14 of claim 1 to recite “the producer network nodes”.
Claim 9 and 16 recite similar limitations as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the claim objection, as set forth above, also applies to the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 has been interpreted as imposing three requirements. First, whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention may obtain only one patent therefor. MPEP 2104. This requirement forms the basis for statutory double patenting rejections when two applications claim the same invention (i.e. claim identical subject matter). Second, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. Id.; MPEP 2106. Third, a claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is specific, substantial and credible. MPEP 2104.
The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (STEP 1) because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims in light of the specification (see paragraph [0065]) encompasses software per se. Although the claims are directed towards a system, the system comprises a network repository function (NRF) and a consumer network node (i.e., a session management function (SMF)), as such, the body of the claim appears to be software alone. Since there are no hardware elements in the claim, the claim appears to be software per se, also.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIDHAV et al. (hereinafter, JIDHAV, WO 2022066078 A1) in view of Lu et al. (hereinafter, Lu, US 20240073786 A1) in view of Kaki et al. (hereinafter, Kaki, US 20240397412 A1).
Regrading claim 1, JIDHAV discloses a method for telecommunication, comprising:
receiving, by a network repository function (NRF) (see Fig.2B:200 “NRF” in view of [0004]) of a wireless communication network (see [0028]; 5G communication networks), a discovery request (see Fig.2B:212 in view of [0032]; At step 212, the NRF 200 receives a request for service discovery form SMF 204 for charging/policy services) from a consumer network node (see Fig.2B:204 in view of [0029]; The Session Management Function (SMF) 204 is the network function; also see [0028]; network functions which are consuming services referred to herein as “consumer NFs” or “consumer nodes”) to identify a producer network node (see Fig.2B:202) capable of providing a service to the consumer network node (see [0029]; The Charging Function (CHF) 202 is the network function responsible for providing “Charging” and “Policy” services and has multiple network function instances, i.e., NFi1 , NFi2, NFi3... NFin; also see [0032]; the NRF 200 responds to SMF/PCF 204 with the information about network functions that provide the charging/policy services via signal 214; NFi2 as one of the resources that provides the requested charging/policy services),
wherein the discovery request identifies one or more parameters specified by the consumer network node, wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of: information of the service requested by the consumer network node (see [0032]; At step 212, the NRF 200 receives a request for service discovery form SMF 204 for charging/policy services), locality information associated with the consumer network node, or network slice information associated with the consumer network node; and
sending (see Fig.2B:214), by the NRF (see Fig.2B:200), information about a list of producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node (see [0032]; the NRF 200 responds to SMF/PCF 204 with the information about network functions that provide the charging/policy services via signal 214… the list that the NRF 200 has provided also includes NFi2 as one of the resources that provides the requested charging/policy services) (see Fig.2B:218) upon a failure of an initial service request (see Fig.2B:216 in view of [0032]; At step/signal 216, SMF 204 … requests service from NFi2. As NFi2 is unavailable, there is no response to the request 216 from SMF/PCF 204. Therefore, at step 218, the request from SMF/PCF 204 times out due to no response from NFi2 and SMF/PCF 204 has to retry the request towards some other NF instance from the list that the NRF 200 has provided),
Although, and as set forth above, JIDHAV discloses sending, by the NRF, information about a list of producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node for retrying a service request upon a failure of an initial service request (see Fig.2B:214-218 in view of [0032]), JIDHAV does not explicitly disclose such information include a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes, wherein the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes.
However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses sending, by the NRF, a list with a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes for retrying a service request upon a failure of an initial service request (see [0098]; Consumers do discovery by querying the NRF. Based on discovery result, the consumer does the selection of an NF Set or a specific NF instance of NF set; also see [0016]-[0017]; The method comprises sending a first request targeting resource context or session context to a second network entity. The method further comprises receiving a first rejection response from the second network entity or an alternative second network entity. The first rejection response includes information comprising a first parameter indicating whether the first request should be retried with the second network entity or to any other alternative second network entity and/or a second parameter indicating whether to use the alternative second network entity for a subsequent request targeting the same resource context or session context. The first rejection response including information comprising the second parameter is received from the alternative second network entity; also see [0118]-[0122]; the first request may be any suitable request which can be sent from a NF consumer to a NF producer or from SCP to a NF producer; Examiner articulates that “a list with a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes for retrying a service request” is understood as [0025] discloses adding the alternative second network entity into the first rejection response).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu with JIDHAV to send, by the NRF, information about a list of producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node with a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes for retrying a service request upon a failure of an initial service request.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve an improved service handling solution by avoiding further reselection of network function producer when a service request has failed (Lu: [0010]-[0015]).
JIDHAV modified by Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes.
However, in an analogous art, Kaki discloses wherein the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes (see [0015]; gNodeBs to perform registrations with an NRF thereby enabling the gNodeBs to be discovered by other network elements… determine the latencies between gNodeBs and AMFs in order to initiate connections based on their respective latency values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kaki with JIDHAV and Lu so that the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce costs and time required to configure while also increasing the efficiency with regard to network resources by optimizing the selection (Kaki: [0015]).
Regarding claim 3, JIDHAV (modified by Lu and Kaki) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, JIDHAV further discloses wherein the consumer network node is a session management function (SMF) (see [0029]; The Session Management Function (SMF) 204 is the network function that consumes “Charging” and “Policy” services provided by CHF 202).
Regarding claim 5, JIDHAV (modified by Lu and Kaki) discloses the method of claim 3, as set forth above. In addition, JIDHAV further discloses wherein the producer network nodes are charging functions (CHFs) (see [0029]; The Session Management Function (SMF) 204 is the network function that consumes “Charging” and “Policy” services provided by CHF 202).
Regarding claim 7, JIDHAV (modified by Lu and Kaki) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. JIDHAV further discloses:
receiving, by the NRF, an indication that a producer network node included in the list of the producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node is unavailable (see [0031]; each of the CHF 202 instances NFi1, NFi2, NFi3... NFin registers in the NRF 200... In response to a successful registration in the NRF 200, each CHF 202 instance receives a registration successful response signal; also see [0032]-[0034]; At step 210, something goes wrong with the NFi2 instance of the CHF 202; the NRF 200 responds to SMF/PCF 204 with the information about network functions that provide the charging/policy services via signal 214. In this response 214, NRF 200 also includes NFi2 as one of the resources that provides the requested charging/policy services. NRF 200 continues to be unaware of the NFi2 instance failure; also see [0035]; It is only after this point (after an hour has passed) that the NRF 200 becomes aware that NFi2 is not available and has crashed and changes NFi2 instance status to SUSPENDED; also see [0047]-[0048]);
based on the indication, updating the list of the producer network nodes (see [0031]-[0035]; It is only after this point (after an hour has passed) that the NRF 200 becomes aware that NFi2 is not available and has crashed and changes NFi2 instance status to SUSPENDED such that NFi2’s services can no longer be discovered by the NFDiscovery service; also see [0048]; NRF 300, based on the information received from different NFs, immediately changes the status of the reported provider NF/NF instance (i.e., NFi2 in this example) to SUSPENDED and considers that the NF/NF instance and its services can no longer be discovered by other NFs via the NFDiscovery service); and
sending, by the NRF, the updated list of the producer network nodes to the consumer network node (see [0035]; NRF 200 then notifies the other NFs (e.g., SMF 204) that have subscribed to receiving notifications about the unavailability of NFi2 and its status being changed to SUSPENDED; also see [0048]; The NRF notifies NFs subscribed to receive notifications of changes of the NF Profile that the NF/NF instance status has been changed to SUSPENDED).
Regrading claim 9, JIDHAV discloses a method for telecommunication, comprising:
sending, by a consumer network node (see Fig.2B:204 in view of [0029]; The Session Management Function (SMF) 204 is the network function; also see [0028]; network functions which are consuming services referred to herein as “consumer NFs” or “consumer nodes”) of a wireless communication network (see [0028]; 5G communication networks), a discovery request (see Fig.2B:212 in view of [0032]; At step 212, the NRF 200 receives a request for service discovery form SMF 204 for charging/policy services) to a network repository function (NRF) (see Fig.2B:200 “NRF” in view of [0004]) to identify a producer network node (see Fig.2B:202) capable of providing a service to the consumer network node (see [0029]; The Charging Function (CHF) 202 is the network function responsible for providing “Charging” and “Policy” services and has multiple network function instances, i.e., NFi1 , NFi2, NFi3... NFin; also see [0032]; the NRF 200 responds to SMF/PCF 204 with the information about network functions that provide the charging/policy services via signal 214; NFi2 as one of the resources that provides the requested charging/policy services),
wherein the discovery request identifies one or more parameters specified by the consumer network node, wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of: information of the service requested by the consumer network node (see [0032]; At step 212, the NRF 200 receives a request for service discovery form SMF 204 for charging/policy services), locality information associated with the consumer network node, or network slice information associated with the consumer network node; and
receiving (see Fig.2B:214), by the consumer network node (see Fig.2B:204), information about a list of producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node (see [0032]; the NRF 200 responds to SMF/PCF 204 with the information about network functions that provide the charging/policy services via signal 214… the list that the NRF 200 has provided also includes NFi2 as one of the resources that provides the requested charging/policy services) (see Fig.2B:218) upon a failure of an initial service request (see Fig.2B:216 in view of [0032]; At step/signal 216, SMF 204 … requests service from NFi2. As NFi2 is unavailable, there is no response to the request 216 from SMF/PCF 204. Therefore, at step 218, the request from SMF/PCF 204 times out due to no response from NFi2 and SMF/PCF 204 has to retry the request towards some other NF instance from the list that the NRF 200 has provided),
Although, and as set forth above, JIDHAV discloses receiving, by the consumer network node, information about a list of producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node for retrying a service request upon a failure of an initial service request (see Fig.2B:214-218 in view of [0032]), JIDHAV does not explicitly disclose such information include a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes, wherein the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes.
However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses receiving, by the consumer network node, a list with a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes for retrying a service request upon a failure of an initial service request (see [0098]; Consumers do discovery by querying the NRF. Based on discovery result, the consumer does the selection of an NF Set or a specific NF instance of NF set; also see [0016]-[0017]; The method comprises sending a first request targeting resource context or session context to a second network entity. The method further comprises receiving a first rejection response from the second network entity or an alternative second network entity. The first rejection response includes information comprising a first parameter indicating whether the first request should be retried with the second network entity or to any other alternative second network entity and/or a second parameter indicating whether to use the alternative second network entity for a subsequent request targeting the same resource context or session context. The first rejection response including information comprising the second parameter is received from the alternative second network entity; also see [0118]-[0122]; the first request may be any suitable request which can be sent from a NF consumer to a NF producer or from SCP to a NF producer; Examiner articulates that “a list with a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes for retrying a service request” is understood as [0025] discloses adding the alternative second network entity into the first rejection response).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu with JIDHAV to receiving, by the consumer network node, information about a list of producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node with a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes for retrying a service request upon a failure of an initial service request.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve an improved service handling solution by avoiding further reselection of network function producer when a service request has failed (Lu: [0010]-[0015]).
JIDHAV modified by Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes.
However, in an analogous art, Kaki discloses wherein the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes (see [0015]; gNodeBs to perform registrations with an NRF thereby enabling the gNodeBs to be discovered by other network elements… determine the latencies between gNodeBs and AMFs in order to initiate connections based on their respective latency values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kaki with JIDHAV and Lu so that the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce costs and time required to configure while also increasing the efficiency with regard to network resources by optimizing the selection (Kaki: [0015]).
Regrading claim 16, JIDHAV discloses a system for retrying a request for service, the system comprising:
a network repository function (NRF) (see Fig.2B:200 “NRF” in view of [0004]); and
a consumer network node (see Fig.2B:204 in view of [0029]; The Session Management Function (SMF) 204 is the network function; also see [0028]; network functions which are consuming services referred to herein as “consumer NFs” or “consumer nodes”);
wherein the consumer network node (see Fig.2B:204) is configured to:
send a discovery request (see Fig.2B:212 in view of [0032]; At step 212, the NRF 200 receives a request for service discovery form SMF 204 for charging/policy services) to the NRF (see Fig.2B:200) to identify a producer network node (see Fig.2B:202) capable of providing a service to the consumer network node (see [0029]; The Charging Function (CHF) 202 is the network function responsible for providing “Charging” and “Policy” services and has multiple network function instances, i.e., NFi1 , NFi2, NFi3... NFin; also see [0032]; the NRF 200 responds to SMF/PCF 204 with the information about network functions that provide the charging/policy services via signal 214; NFi2 as one of the resources that provides the requested charging/policy services),
wherein the discovery request identifies one or more parameters specified by the consumer network node, wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of: information of the service requested by the consumer network node (see [0032]; At step 212, the NRF 200 receives a request for service discovery form SMF 204 for charging/policy services), locality information associated with the consumer network node, or network slice information associated with the consumer network node;
wherein the NRF (see Fig.2B:200) is configured to:
identify producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node (see [0029]; The Charging Function (CHF) 202 is the network function responsible for providing “Charging” and “Policy” services and has multiple network function instances, i.e., NFi1 , NFi2, NFi3... NFin; also see [0032]; the NRF 200 responds to SMF/PCF 204 with the information about network functions that provide the charging/policy services via signal 214; NFi2 as one of the resources that provides the requested charging/policy services); and
send (see Fig.2B:214) information about a list of producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node (see [0032]; the NRF 200 responds to SMF/PCF 204 with the information about network functions that provide the charging/policy services via signal 214… the list that the NRF 200 has provided also includes NFi2 as one of the resources that provides the requested charging/policy services) (see Fig.2B:218) upon a failure of an initial service request (see Fig.2B:216 in view of [0032]; At step/signal 216, SMF 204 … requests service from NFi2. As NFi2 is unavailable, there is no response to the request 216 from SMF/PCF 204. Therefore, at step 218, the request from SMF/PCF 204 times out due to no response from NFi2 and SMF/PCF 204 has to retry the request towards some other NF instance from the list that the NRF 200 has provided),
wherein the consumer network node (see Fig.2B:204) is further configured to:
send the initial request (see Fig.2B:216) for service to a producer network node (see Fig.2B:202) identified in the list of producer network nodes (see [0033]; At step/signal 216, SMF 204 randomly (or otherwise) selects the NFi2 instance from the list that the NRF 200 has provided and requests service from NFi2); and
upon failure of the initial request for service, send another request for service to another producer network node (see [0032]; As NFi2 is unavailable, there is no response to the request 216 from SMF/PCF 204. Therefore, at step 218, the request from SMF/PCF 204 times out due to no response from NFi2 and SMF/PCF 204 has to retry the request towards some other NF instance from the list that the NRF 200 has provided)
Although, and as set forth above, JIDHAV discloses send information about a list of producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node for retrying a service request upon a failure of an initial service request (see Fig.2B:214-218 in view of [0032]), JIDHAV does not explicitly disclose such information include a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes, wherein the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes; and send another request for service to another producer network node based on the retry order.
However, in an analogous art, Lu discloses send a list of producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node for retrying a service request upon a failure of an initial service request (see [0098]; Consumers do discovery by querying the NRF. Based on discovery result, the consumer does the selection of an NF Set or a specific NF instance of NF set; also see [0016]-[0017]; The method comprises sending a first request targeting resource context or session context to a second network entity. The method further comprises receiving a first rejection response from the second network entity or an alternative second network entity. The first rejection response includes information comprising a first parameter indicating whether the first request should be retried with the second network entity or to any other alternative second network entity and/or a second parameter indicating whether to use the alternative second network entity for a subsequent request targeting the same resource context or session context. The first rejection response including information comprising the second parameter is received from the alternative second network entity; also see [0118]-[0122]; the first request may be any suitable request which can be sent from a NF consumer to a NF producer or from SCP to a NF producer; Examiner articulates that “a list with a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes for retrying a service request” is understood as [0025] discloses adding the alternative second network entity into the first rejection response); and
send another request for service to another producer network node based on the retry order (see [0016]-[0017]; use the alternative second network entity for a subsequent request targeting the same resource context or session context.; also see [0118]-[0122]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu with JIDHAV to send information about a list of producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node with a retry order specifying an order of producer network nodes for retrying a service request upon a failure of an initial service request; and upon failure of the initial request for service, send another request for service to another producer network node based on the retry order.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve an improved service handling solution by avoiding further reselection of network function producer when a service request has failed (Lu: [0010]-[0015]).
JIDHAV modified by Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes.
However, in an analogous art, Kaki discloses wherein the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes (see [0015]; gNodeBs to perform registrations with an NRF thereby enabling the gNodeBs to be discovered by other network elements… determine the latencies between gNodeBs and AMFs in order to initiate connections based on their respective latency values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kaki with JIDHAV and Lu so that the order of the producer network nodes is determined based on at least a latency associated with each of the producer network nodes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce costs and time required to configure while also increasing the efficiency with regard to network resources by optimizing the selection (Kaki: [0015]).
As for Claim 10 and 17, the claims depend on claims 9 and 16 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claims 10 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
As for Claim 12, the claim depends on claim 10, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
As for Claim 14 and 19, the claims depend on claims 9 and 16 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claims 14 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIDHAV et al. (hereinafter, JIDHAV, WO 2022066078 A1) in view of Lu et al. (hereinafter, Lu, US 20240073786 A1) in view of Kaki et al. (hereinafter, Kaki, US 20240397412 A1) in view of LIVANOS et al. (hereinafter, LIVANOS, WO 2020023243 A1).
Regarding claim 2, JIDHAV (modified by Lu and Kaki) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Although JIDHAV discloses profiles of network nodes (see [0048]-[0049]), JIDHAV (modified by Lu and Kaki) does not explicitly disclose accessing, by the NRF, a database storing profiles of network nodes in the wireless communication network; and identifying producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node.
However, in an analogous art, LIVANOS discloses further comprising:
accessing, by the NRF, a database storing profiles of network nodes in the wireless communication network (see [0022]; an NF profile repository function (NPRF) is provided to receive, for each one of a plurality of NF instances of a plurality of different NF types, information associated with the NF instance and store the information in memory (e.g. a database). The different NF types of NF instances may include… a session management function (SMF), and a policy control function (PCF). The NPRF may then receive, from an NF repository function (NRF), a message which indicates a request for information associated with one or more NF instances of an indicated NF type; also see [0037]; The information for each NF instance may be or include profile information of the NF instance); and
identifying producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node (see [0022]; In response, the NPRF may retrieve, from the memory based on the indicated NF type, information associated with the one or more NF instances. The NPRF may send, to the NRF, a message which indicates a response to the request, where the response includes retrieved information associated with the one or more NF instances; also see [0037]; The information for each NF instance may be or include profile information of the NF instance, which may be or include…one or more service indications each indicative of a service provided by the NF instance, an availability indication which indicates a current availability of the NF instance, and/or a loading indication which indicates a current loading of the NF instance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LIVANOS with JIDHAV, Lu and Kaki to access, by the NRF, a database storing profiles of network nodes in the wireless communication network; and identify producer network nodes capable of providing the service to the consumer network node.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for identifying the NF instance and/or for selecting one of the NF instances for use as a serving NF instance for a data session for a UE (LIVANOS: [0039]).
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIDHAV et al. (hereinafter, JIDHAV, WO 2022066078 A1) in view of Lu et al. (hereinafter, Lu, US 20240073786 A1) in view of Kaki et al. (hereinafter, Kaki, US 20240397412 A1) in view of Puente (US 20230269608 A1).
Regarding claim 4, JIDHAV (modified by Lu and Kaki) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. JIDHAV (modified by Lu and Kaki) does not explicitly disclose wherein the producer network nodes are policy control functions (PCFs).
However, in an analogous art, Puente discloses wherein the producer network nodes are policy control functions (PCFs) (see [0072]; PCF 210 responsible for policy control in order to support Quality of Service (QoS). Based on the information, the PCF 210 determines policies about mobility and session management to make the AMF 200 and SMF 208 operate properly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Puente with JIDHAV, Lu and Kaki so that the producer network nodes are policy control functions (PCFs).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable the 5GC network to support various services flexibly (Puente: [0069]).
As for Claim 11 and 18, the claims depend on claims 10 and 16 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIDHAV et al. (hereinafter, JIDHAV, WO 2022066078 A1) in view of Lu et al. (hereinafter, Lu, US 20240073786 A1) in view of Kaki et al. (hereinafter, Kaki, US 20240397412 A1) in view of Yang (US 20190280873 A1).
Regarding claim 6, JIDHAV (modified by Lu and Kaki) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Although Lu discloses a retry order (see [0098]), JIDHAV (modified by Lu and Kaki) does not explicitly disclose wherein the retry order is further determined based on at least one of: capacity information or geo-location information of the producer network nodes.
However, in an analogous art, Yang discloses wherein the retry order is further determined based on at least one of: capacity information or geo-location information of the producer network nodes (see [0046]-[0048]; the service data to be retried when it is determined that a predetermined retry execution condition (a maximum capacity) is triggered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yang with JIDHAV, Lu and Kaki so that the retry order is further determined based on at least one of: capacity information or geo-location information of the producer network nodes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the amount of service data to be submitted to perform particular operations when the first verification may fail, and to reduce network traffic, bandwidth usage, and unnecessary use of computing resources such as, memory, processing cycles, and data storage (Yang: [0085]).
As for Claim 13, the claim depends on claim 9, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons For The Indication Of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the limitations presented in the dependent claims 8, 15 and 20, taken together as a whole and as presented, cannot be rejected by the prior art of record without using a level of hindsight reasoning that is impermissible. Specifically, the closest prior-art references JIDHAV et al. (WO 2022066078 A1), Lu et al. (US 20240073786 A1), Kaki et al. (US 20240397412 A1) and JIN et al (WO 2024198970 A2), neither alone, nor in combination can be used to reject the independent claims based on the questions of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KOPONEN et al. (WO 2013158920 A1) discloses waiting for a first call to a first registry node to fail in order to retry by sending a new call to a different registry node.
JIN et al. (WO 2024198970 A2) teaches network functions and methods for enhanced management of user segment with NF group ID.
RODRIGO (WO 2022022909 A1) discloses service request handling using a network repository function (NRF) node.
Khan et al. (US 20110138053 A1) teaches a client application selects the server having available resources as the active server, and the other available servers as standby servers.
Talebi et al. (US 20200267785 A1) discloses device configuration for time sensitive network bridge using Network Repository Function.
Dulman (US 5915008 A) teaches system and method for changing advanced intelligent network services from customer premises equipment.
CAI et al. (US 20200028921 A1) discloses network function information interaction method between NF node and NRF node.
Fehring et al. (US 20230269137 A1) teaches Disaster Recovery For Cloud-based Private Application Access.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453