DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/30/2025 has been entered. New claim 24 has been added. Claims 1-18 and 20-24 are pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-21, and 23-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 in view of Verma (US 20120243524 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches the majority of the limitations recited in the claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 does not explicitly disclose the second response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device.
However, Verma teaches the second response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device. ([0069]: Examples of the WFD devices may include mobile phones. [0123]: When the predetermined service is not available, a single service discovery response TLV includes a predetermined error status code value based on the field “Status Code” and a service name of an unavailable service based on the field “Service Information”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common practice to provide a response message to a service discovery request to indicate whether the requested service is available or not. As taught by Verma, [0123].
Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 2 of the instant application. Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 3 of the instant application. Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 4 of the instant application. Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 5 of the instant application. Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 6 of the instant application. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 and Verma teach claim 8 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 9, Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches the majority of the limitations recited in the claim 9 of the instant application.
Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 does not explicitly disclose the second response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device.
However, Verma teaches the second response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device. ([0069]: Examples of the WFD devices may include mobile phones. [0123]: When the predetermined service is not available, a single service discovery response TLV includes a predetermined error status code value based on the field “Status Code” and a service name of an unavailable service based on the field “Service Information”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common practice to provide a response message to a service discovery request to indicate whether the requested service is available or not. As taught by Verma, [0123].
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 10 of the instant application. Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 11 of the instant application. Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 12 of the instant application. Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 13 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 15, Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches the majority of the limitations recited in the claim 15 of the instant application.
Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 does not explicitly disclose the second response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device.
However, Verma teaches the second response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device. ([0069]: Examples of the WFD devices may include mobile phones. [0123]: When the predetermined service is not available, a single service discovery response TLV includes a predetermined error status code value based on the field “Status Code” and a service name of an unavailable service based on the field “Service Information”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common practice to provide a response message to a service discovery request to indicate whether the requested service is available or not. As taught by Verma, [0123].
Claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 16 of the instant application. Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 17 of the instant application. Claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 18 of the instant application. Claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 19 of the instant application. Claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 20 of the instant application. Claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 21 of the instant application. Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 and Verma teach claim 23 of the instant application. Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 teaches claim 24 of the instant application.
Claims 7, 14 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 in view of Verma (US 20120243524 A1), and in view of Buckley (US 20190230586 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 and Verma teach the method of claim 1.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 and Verma do not explicitly disclose the second server is deployed outside of the mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device.
Buckley teaches wherein the second server is deployed outside of the mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device. ([0003]: when the UE roams into a country or region or legal jurisdiction that is not belonging to the UE's Home PLMN (HPLMN), there may be LI obligations that need to be met and require the UE to select and establish a connection to an ePDG residing in a Visited PLMN (VPLMN) within the visited country/legal jurisdiction.) It is well-known the HPLMN belong to a particular MNO and the VPLMN belongs to a different MNO.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11997173 to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because i when the UE roams into a country or region or legal jurisdiction that is not belonging to the UE's Home PLMN (HPLMN), there may be LI obligations that need to be met and require the UE to select and establish a connection to an ePDG residing in a Visited PLMN (VPLMN) within the visited country/legal jurisdiction. As taught by Buckley, [0003].
Same rationales apply to claim 14 (method) and claim 22 (method) because they are substantially similar to claim 7 (method).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 20190230586 A1) in view of Verma (US 20120243524 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Buckley teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a telecommunications network comprising a plurality of mobile networks operated by a plurality of mobile network operators and a provider domain, the method comprising: ([0037]: The ePDG that can be selected to be connected to by the UE can either be in the Visited PLMN (VPLMN) or the Home PLMN (HPLMN). [0170]: Today, there are about 600 PLMNs and an operator may have to provision 600 PLMNs assuming none of the PLMN like their inbound roamers to select the ePDG in the HPLMN. Abstract: promotes the UE attempting to connect to a particular Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) using a network function belonging to the particular PLMN.)
signaling a first request to a first server to discover a second server having information about at least one of a public land mobile network, PLMN, identifier and at least one network service of a mobile network operator, MNO, serving the UE, ([0077]: instructing an UE to select an ePDG (e.g. second server) in the VPLMN by the VPLMN when the UE has attached to a PLMN. [0052]: DHCP is used in an IP network in order to dynamically configure network hosts with data/parameters (e.g., IP addresses, DNS servers, default gateway, etc.). [0053]: The DHCP client 202, which may reside/be hosted on a UE, broadcasts a Discover message 206 to the connected-to network (e.g., sends the Discover message to an IPv4 address of 255.255.255.255). One or more DHCP servers 204 (e.g. first server) may respond to the client 202 with a DHCP Offer message 208, which contains one or more parameters (e.g., IP address). [0003]: A Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWiFi) call requires connection to an Evolved Packet Data Gateway (ePDG), which in turn needs to be selected by the UE. [0069] and Claim 4 teaches the UE can connect to Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS) provided by the PLMN through the ePDG.)
the first request including a first fully qualified domain name, FQDN, of the second server, pointing to the provider domain; ([0108]: if an FQDN was received, the UE uses that FQDN in contacting the ePDG. [0136]: the UE 902 uses the ePDG address received in step 934 to setup a secure tunnel to the ePDG. This may consist of sending an ePDG FQDN to a DNS server so that the FQDN can be resolved into an IP address of the ePDG.)
responsive to the first request, receiving a first response from the first server comprising a resolution or a redirection of the first FQDN to an internet protocol, IP, address for the second server having the information; ([0108]: The FQDN shall be used as input to DNS query to obtain IP address of the ePDG. The UE uses the IP address to set-up an IPSec tunnel to the ePDG. [0136]: the UE 902 uses the ePDG address received (e.g. first response) in step 934 to setup a secure tunnel to the ePDG. This may consist of sending an ePDG FQDN to a DNS server so that the FQDN can be resolved into an IP address of the ePDG.)
signaling a second request to the second server to discover the information about the at least one network service of the MNO; and ([0010]: a network node for assisting a user equipment (UE) in selecting a network function is disclosed. The network node comprises a communication interface that receives a first message from the UE and sends a second message to the UE. The first message includes UE request capabilities.)
responsive to the second request, receiving a second response from the second server. ([0010]: The network node comprises a communication interface that receives a first message from the UE and sends a second message to the UE. The first message includes UE request capabilities. The second message includes an indication that promotes the UE attempting to connect to a particular Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) using a network function belonging to the particular PLMN.)
Buckley does not explicitly disclose the second response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the UE.
However, Verma teaches the second response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the UE. ([0069]: Examples of the WFD devices may include mobile phones. [0123]: When the predetermined service is not available, a single service discovery response TLV includes a predetermined error status code value based on the field “Status Code” and a service name of an unavailable service based on the field “Service Information”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common practice to provide a response message to a service discovery request to indicate whether the requested service is available or not. As taught by Verma, [0123].
Regarding claim 2, Buckley and Verma teach the method of claim 1.
Buckley teaches wherein the at least one network service comprises a streaming service having content for delivery to the UE through the PLMN. ([0069]: Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS) is a 3GPP broadcast technology that is similar to CBS, but MBMS allows an operator to deliver more data intensive content to a group of users (e.g., TV, video, etc.). Claim 4: the UE request capabilities comprise an indicator indicating a network function capable of connecting to an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) network.)
Regarding claim 3, Buckley and Verma teach the method of claim 1.
Buckley teaches wherein the first server is a domain name server, DNS, and the resolution or the redirection of the first FQDN to an IP address for a second server comprises an IP anycast address for the second server. ([0108]: The FQDN shall be used as input to DNS query to obtain IP address of the ePDG. The UE uses the IP address to set-up an IPSec tunnel to the ePDG. [0136]: the UE 902 uses the ePDG address received (e.g. first response) in step 934 to setup a secure tunnel to the ePDG. This may consist of sending an ePDG FQDN to a DNS server so that the FQDN can be resolved into an IP address of the ePDG.)
Regarding claim 6, Buckley and Verma teach the method of claim 1.
Buckley teaches receiving the PLMN identifier from the second server; and using the PLMN identifier to obtain access information for the at least one network service from a centralized server. ([0042]: ePDG selection information may consist of provisioning zero to many PLMN IDs. Abstract: second message includes an indication that promotes the UE attempting to connect to a particular Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) using a network function belonging to the particular PLMN.)
Regarding claim 7, Buckley and Verma teach the method of claim 1.
Buckley teaches wherein the second server is deployed outside of the mobile network of the MNO serving the UE. ([0003]: when the UE roams into a country or region or legal jurisdiction that is not belonging to the UE's Home PLMN (HPLMN), there may be LI obligations that need to be met and require the UE to select and establish a connection to an ePDG residing in a Visited PLMN (VPLMN) within the visited country/legal jurisdiction.) It is well-known the HPLMN belong to a particular MNO and the VPLMN belongs to a different MNO.
Regarding claim 8, Buckley and Verma teach the method of claim 1.
Buckley and Verma teaches determining that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in the mobile network of the MNO serving the UE based on the second response from the second server. (Buckley teaches receiving a second response from the second server in [0010]. Verma teaches the second response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device in [0123].
Regarding claim 9, Buckley teaches a method performed by a first server and a second server in a telecommunications network comprising a plurality of mobile networks operated by a plurality of mobile network operators and a provider domain, the method comprising: ([0037]: The ePDG that can be selected to be connected to by the UE can either be in the Visited PLMN (VPLMN) or the Home PLMN (HPLMN). [0170]: Today, there are about 600 PLMNs and an operator may have to provision 600 PLMNs assuming none of the PLMN like their inbound roamers to select the ePDG in the HPLMN. Abstract: promotes the UE attempting to connect to a particular Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) using a network function belonging to the particular PLMN.)
receiving, by the first server, a first request from a communication device to discover a second server having information about at least one of a public land mobile network, PLMN, identifier and at least one network service of a mobile network operator, MNO, serving the communication device, ([0077]: instructing an UE to select an ePDG (e.g. second server) in the VPLMN by the VPLMN when the UE has attached to a PLMN. [0052]: DHCP is used in an IP network in order to dynamically configure network hosts with data/parameters (e.g., IP addresses, DNS servers, default gateway, etc.). [0053]: The DHCP client 202, which may reside/be hosted on a UE (e.g. a communication device), broadcasts a Discover message 206 to the connected-to network (e.g., sends the Discover message to an IPv4 address of 255.255.255.255). One or more DHCP servers 204 (e.g. first server) may respond to the client 202 with a DHCP Offer message 208, which contains one or more parameters (e.g., IP address). [0003]: A Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWiFi) call requires connection to an Evolved Packet Data Gateway (ePDG), which in turn needs to be selected by the UE. [0069] and Claim 4 teaches the UE can connect to Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS) provided by the PLMN through the ePDG.)
the first request including a first fully qualified domain name, FQDN, of the second server, pointing to the provider domain; ([0108]: if an FQDN was received, the UE uses that FQDN in contacting the ePDG. [0136]: the UE 902 uses the ePDG address received in step 934 to setup a secure tunnel to the ePDG. This may consist of sending an ePDG FQDN to a DNS server so that the FQDN can be resolved into an IP address of the ePDG.)
responsive to the first request, signaling, by the first server, a first response to the communication device comprising a resolution or a redirection of the first FQDN to an internet protocol, IP, address for the second server having the information; ([0108]: The FQDN shall be used as input to DNS query to obtain IP address of the ePDG. The UE uses the IP address to set-up an IPSec tunnel to the ePDG. [0136]: the UE 902 uses the ePDG address received (e.g. first response) in step 934 to setup a secure tunnel to the ePDG. This may consist of sending an ePDG FQDN to a DNS server so that the FQDN can be resolved into an IP address of the ePDG.)
receiving, by the second server, a request from the communication device to discover information about the at least one network service of a mobile network operator, MNO; and ([0010]: a network node for assisting a user equipment (UE) in selecting a network function is disclosed. The network node comprises a communication interface that receives a first message from the UE and sends a second message to the UE. The first message includes UE request capabilities.)
responsive to the request, signaling, by the second server, a response towards the communication device. ([0010]: The network node comprises a communication interface that receives a first message from the UE and sends a second message to the UE. The first message includes UE request capabilities. The second message includes an indication that promotes the UE attempting to connect to a particular Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) using a network function belonging to the particular PLMN.)
Buckley does not explicitly disclose the response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device.
However, Verma teaches the response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device. ([0069]: Examples of the WFD devices may include mobile phones. [0123]: When the predetermined service is not available, a single service discovery response TLV includes a predetermined error status code value based on the field “Status Code” and a service name of an unavailable service based on the field “Service Information”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common practice to provide a response message to a service discovery request to indicate whether the requested service is available or not. As taught by Verma, [0123].
Same rationales apply to claim 10 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 2 (method).
Regarding claim 11, Buckley and Verma teach the method of claim 9.
Buckley teaches wherein the first server is a domain name server, DNS, operated by the MNO and the resolution or the redirection of the FQDN to an IP address for the second server comprises a canonical name, CNAME, address for the second server. ([0108]: The FQDN shall be used as input to DNS query to obtain IP address of the ePDG. The UE uses the IP address to set-up an IPSec tunnel to the ePDG. [0136]: the UE 902 uses the ePDG address received (e.g. first response) in step 934 to setup a secure tunnel to the ePDG. This may consist of sending an ePDG FQDN to a DNS server so that the FQDN can be resolved into an IP address of the ePDG.)
Same rationales apply to claim 14 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 7 (method).
Claim(s) 4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 20190230586 A1) in view of Verma (US 20120243524 A1), and in view of Pearson (Managing Name Resolution).
Regarding claim 4, Buckley and Verman teach the method of claim 1.
Buckley teaches wherein the first server is a first domain name server, DNS, and wherein the resolution or the redirection of the first FQDN comprises a canonical name, CNAME, resolution or redirection. ([0108]: The FQDN shall be used as input to DNS query to obtain IP address of the ePDG. The UE uses the IP address to set-up an IPSec tunnel to the ePDG. [0136]: the UE 902 uses the ePDG address received (e.g. first response) in step 934 to setup a secure tunnel to the ePDG. This may consist of sending an ePDG FQDN to a DNS server so that the FQDN can be resolved into an IP address of the ePDG.)
Buckley and Verma do not explicitly disclose wherein the CNAME resolution or redirection comprises: wherein the first response from the first server provides a redirection of the first FQDN to a second FQDN for a third server, wherein the third server is a second domain name server; signaling a second request to the third server to resolve the second FQDN of the third server; and receiving a response from the third server comprising the IP address for the second server.
However, Pearson teaches wherein the first response from the first server provides a redirection of the first FQDN to a second FQDN for a third server, wherein the third server is a second domain name server; signaling a second request to the third server to resolve the second FQDN of the third server; and receiving a response from the third server comprising the IP address for the second server. (Page 1: An FQDN contains both the hostname and a domain name. It uniquely identifies a host within a DNS hierarchy. DNS servers are used to resolve FQDNs to IP addresses. A DNS client sends a query to a DNS server and a DNS server (e.g. first DNS server) can send a query to another DNS server (e.g. second DNS server) on behalf of a client. When a DNS server receives a recursive request, it queries other DNS servers until it finds the information or until the query fails.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley and Verma to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common knowledge that under the DNS architecture that a DNS query is a request for name resolution. Name resolution requests can be initiated by both DNS clients and DNS servers. A DNS client sends a query to a DNS server and a DNS server can send a query to another DNS server on behalf of a client. As taught by Pearson, Page 1.
Regarding claim 12, Buckley and Verma teach the method of claim 9.
Buckley and Verma do not explicitly disclose forwarding the first request to a third server in or provided by the provider domain to which the FQDN belongs; responsive to the forwarding, receiving a CNAME redirect response from the third server; and signaling the CNAME redirect response to the communication device.
However, Pearson teaches forwarding the first request to a third server in or provided by the provider domain to which the FQDN belongs; responsive to the forwarding, receiving a CNAME redirect response from the third server; and signaling the CNAME redirect response to the communication device. (Page 1: An FQDN contains both the hostname and a domain name. It uniquely identifies a host within a DNS hierarchy. DNS servers are used to resolve FQDNs to IP addresses. A DNS client sends a query to a DNS server and a DNS server (e.g. first DNS server) can send a query to another DNS server (e.g. second DNS server) on behalf of a client. When a DNS server receives a recursive request, it queries other DNS servers until it finds the information or until the query fails.) It is well known in the art that CNAME is a type of DNS record provides an alias for another domain. Alvarez teaches searching through DNS record to query each DNS server in the list to find the requested information. It obviously using the CNAME.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley and Verma to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common knowledge that under the DNS architecture that a DNS query is a request for name resolution. Name resolution requests can be initiated by both DNS clients and DNS servers. A DNS client sends a query to a DNS server and a DNS server can send a query to another DNS server on behalf of a client. As taught by Pearson, Page 1.
Regarding claim 13, Buckley, Verma and Pearson teach the method of claim 12.
However, Pearson teaches wherein the CNAME redirect response comprises a second FQDN for the second server. (Page 1: An FQDN contains both the hostname and a domain name. It uniquely identifies a host within a DNS hierarchy. DNS servers are used to resolve FQDNs to IP addresses. A DNS client sends a query to a DNS server and a DNS server (e.g. first DNS server) can send a query to another DNS server (e.g. second DNS server) on behalf of a client. When a DNS server receives a recursive request, it queries other DNS servers until it finds the information or until the query fails.)
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 20190230586 A1) in view of Verma (US 20120243524 A1), and in view of Carletti (Redirects with HTTPS).
Regarding claim 5, Buckley and Verma teach the method of claim 1.
Buckley and Verma do not explicitly disclose wherein the first request comprises an HTTPS certificate and a hypertext transfer protocol secure, HTTPS, request for a first uniform resource locator (URL), wherein the first server is in or provided by the provider domain, and wherein the redirection of the FQDN to an IP address for a second server comprises an HTTPS redirection and delegation of the HTTPS certificate and the first URL to a second URL for a third server in the provider domain and a delegation of an HTTPS certificate.
However, Carletti teaches wherein the first request comprises an HTTPS certificate and a hypertext transfer protocol secure, HTTPS, request for a first uniform resource locator (URL), wherein the first server is in or provided by the provider domain, and wherein the redirection of the FQDN to an IP address for a second server comprises an HTTPS redirection and delegation of the HTTPS certificate and the first URL to a second URL for a third server in the provider domain and a delegation of an HTTPS certificate. (Page 4 HTTPS negotiation vs redirect: The client and the server exchange the SSL certificate information. The client requests the page, with an encrypted connection. The DNS server tells the client the request resulted in a redirect, with the response sent over an encrypted connection. The valid SSL certificate is need for the redirecting domain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley and Verma to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common knowledge that HTTPS request need to be redirected to another DNS server for name resolution. A valid SSL certificate is needed at the redirecting domain. As taught by Carletti, Page 4.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 20190230586 A1) in view of Verma (US 20120243524 A1), and further in view of Kukuchka (US 20140349634 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Buckley teaches a method performed by a second server in a telecommunications network comprising a plurality of mobile networks operated by a plurality of mobile network operators and a provider domain, the method comprising: ([0037]: The ePDG that can be selected to be connected to by the UE can either be in the Visited PLMN (VPLMN) or the Home PLMN (HPLMN). [0170]: Today, there are about 600 PLMNs and an operator may have to provision 600 PLMNs assuming none of the PLMN like their inbound roamers to select the ePDG in the HPLMN. Abstract: promotes the UE attempting to connect to a particular Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) using a network function belonging to the particular PLMN. [0052]: DHCP is used in an IP network in order to dynamically configure network hosts with data/parameters (e.g., IP addresses, DNS servers, default gateway, etc.).)
receiving a request form a communication device to discover information about at least one network service of a mobile network operator, MNO; and ([0010]: a network node for assisting a user equipment (UE) in selecting a network function is disclosed. The network node comprises a communication interface that receives a first message from the UE and sends a second message to the UE. The first message includes UE request capabilities. [0077]: instructing an UE to select an ePDG (e.g. second server) in the VPLMN by the VPLMN when the UE has attached to a PLMN. [0003]: A Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWiFi) call requires connection to an Evolved Packet Data Gateway (ePDG), which in turn needs to be selected by the UE. [0069] and Claim 4 teaches the UE can connect to Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS) provided by the PLMN through the ePDG.)
responsive to the request, signaling a response towards the communication device. ([0010]: The network node comprises a communication interface that receives a first message from the UE and sends a second message to the UE. The first message includes UE request capabilities. The second message includes an indication that promotes the UE attempting to connect to a particular Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) using a network function belonging to the particular PLMN.)
Buckley does not explicitly disclose the response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device.
However, Verma teaches the response comprising an identification that the at least one network service of the MNO is not available in a mobile network of the MNO serving the communication device. ([0069]: Examples of the WFD devices may include mobile phones. [0123]: When the predetermined service is not available, a single service discovery response TLV includes a predetermined error status code value based on the field “Status Code” and a service name of an unavailable service based on the field “Service Information”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common practice to provide a response message to a service discovery request to indicate whether the requested service is available or not. As taught by Verma, [0123].
Buckley and Verma do not explicitly disclose identifying a subscriber associated with the communication device; and signaling a response towards the communication device comprising information on a subscription of the subscriber.
However, Kukuchka teaches identifying a subscriber associated with the communication device; and signaling a response towards the communication device comprising information on a subscription of the subscriber. ([0021]: The SIM card can be inserted into the mobile wireless communication device and enable that device to identify a user of the mobile wireless communication device as a subscriber of set of services offered by a particular wireless communication service provider. [0022]: The SIM card contains a unique serial number known as an international mobile subscriber identity (ISMI) that can authenticate a user of a mobile wireless communication device to a wireless communication service provider through its wireless communication network (e.g., signaling a response towards the communication device). [0026]: Subscribers can have access to different resources through a wireless communication service provider's network based on their particular subscription.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley and Verma to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because the user of the mobile wireless communication device can subscribe to one or more services offered by a wireless communication service provider that enable the mobile wireless communication device to access different resources through a wireless communications network. Each user's wireless communication service subscription can be customized to the user's specific requirements. It is desirable for configuring a mobile wireless communication device by selecting a service configuration profile based on stored identifiers. As taught by Kukuchka, [0002]-[0005].
Same rationales apply to claim 16 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 2 (method).
Regarding claim 17, Buckley, Verma and Kukuchka teach the method of claim 15.
Buckley teaches wherein the information about the at least one network service comprises at least one of a type of a service supported by the second server, an identification of how to access the service, an identification of valid or authorized parameters for the service, and information on a subscription of the communication device. ([0194]: To identify a subscriber for network access, the wireless communication device 1100 uses a Subscriber Identity Module or a Removable User Identity Module (SIM/RUIM) card 1138 for communication with a network, such as the wireless network 1150.)
Same rationales apply to claim 22 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 7 (method).
Same rationales apply to claim 23 (method) because it is substantially similar to claim 8 (method).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 20190230586 A1) in view of Verma (US 20120243524 A1), and in view of Kukuchka (US 20140349634 A1), and further in view of Choksi (US 20050250509 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Buckley, Verma and Kukuchka teach the method of claim 15.
Buckley, Verma and Kukuchka do not explicitly disclose checking an origin address of the request; and deriving a subscription class from the origin address.
However, Choksi teaches checking an origin address of the request; and deriving a subscription class from the origin address. ([0006]: A subscription level associated with a connection is determined. The request for the connection is processed based on the subscription level.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley, Verma and Kukuchka to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because Each cell of a wireless network is able to support a certain number or bandwidth of wireless calls. It is desirable for managing real-time bandwidth request in a wireless network that substantially eliminate or reduce problems and disadvantages associated with previous systems and methods. In particular, call origination, handoff, additional bandwidth and/or other suitable requests for bandwidth are differentiated based on user subscription levels to deliver differentiated tiered services to mobile users. As taught by Choksi, [0003]-[0005].
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 20190230586 A1) in view of Verma (US 20120243524 A1), and in view of Kukuchka (US 20140349634 A1), and further in view of Carletti (Redirects with HTTPS).
Regarding claim 20, Buckley, Verma and Kukuchka teach the method of claim 15.
Buckley, Verma and Kukuchka do not explicitly disclose wherein the request and the response are hypertext transfer protocol secure, HTTPS, protected.
However, Carletti teaches wherein the request and the response are hypertext transfer protocol secure, HTTPS, protected. (Page 4 HTTPS negotiation vs redirect: The client and the server exchange the SSL certificate information. The client requests the page, with an encrypted connection. The DNS server tells the client the request resulted in a redirect, with the response sent over an encrypted connection. The valid SSL certificate is need for the redirecting domain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley, Verma and Kukuchka to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common knowledge that HTTPS request need to be redirected to another DNS server for name resolution. A valid SSL certificate is needed at the redirecting domain. As taught by Carletti, Page 4.
Regarding claim 21, Buckley, Verma and Kukuchka teach the method of claim 15.
Buckley, Verma and Kukuchka do not explicitly disclose wherein the second server is configured with an internet protocol, IP, anycast address and wherein the second server has a hypertext transfer protocol secure, HTTPS, certificate from the provider domain.
However, Carletti teaches wherein the second server is configured with an internet protocol, IP, anycast address and wherein the second server has a hypertext transfer protocol secure, HTTPS, certificate from the provider domain. (Page 4 HTTPS negotiation vs redirect: The client and the server exchange the SSL certificate information. The client requests the page, with an encrypted connection. The DNS server tells the client the request resulted in a redirect, with the response sent over an encrypted connection. The valid SSL certificate is need for the redirecting domain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley, Verma and Kukuchka to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common knowledge that HTTPS request need to be redirected to another DNS server for name resolution. A valid SSL certificate is needed at the redirecting domain. As taught by Carletti, Page 4.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 20190230586 A1) in view of Verma (US 20120243524 A1), and in view of Lee (US 202310032185 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Buckley and Verman teach the method of claim 1.
Buckley teaches to discover the information about the at least one network service of the MNO; and ([0010]: a network node for assisting a user equipment (UE) in selecting a network function is disclosed. The network node comprises a communication interface that receives a first message from the UE and sends a second message to the UE. The first message includes UE request capabilities.)
Buckley and Verma do not explicitly disclose wherein the information about the at least one network service of the MNO comprises a type of service available and how to access a service.
However, Lee teaches wherein the information about the at least one network service of the MNO comprises a type of service available and how to access a service. ([0144]: List of the target NF information. [0145]-[0146]: the NF discovery request message of step 403 may include information (NF type, NF ID, etc.) of the NF 430. The NF discovery request based on the received information (e.g., NF type, NF ID, or target NF information, etc.). The NF ID includes the AF ID authorized by the MNO.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buckley and Verma to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because the NF may be the NF or the AF of the 5G system, and may include the AF operated by the third party. The NF discovery request message may include information of a target NF to be discovered by the NF. As taught by Lee, [0143].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 8, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the Double Patenting rejection(s) to be held in abeyance until the claims of the instant application are otherwise in condition for allowance is acknowledged. The double patenting rejection is maintained and update in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-18 and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-10, applicant submits that prior art of record, Buckley fails to teach "signaling a second request to the second server to discover the information about the at least one network service of the MNO", as recited in claims 1, 9 and 15.
In response to applicant’s arguments, Buckley teaches in [0010] a network node (e.g., the second server) receive a first message (i.e., UE request capabilities), and sending a second message (e.g., response) back to UE indicating the UE attempting to connect to a particular Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) using a network function belonging to the particular PLMN. The network node assisting the UE to discover and select the network function in a particular PLMN based on the first message (i.e., UE request capabilities). The UE request capabilities include, for example a particular VoWiFi that is preferred by the UE. The network node assists the UE to discover whether the requested VoWiFi is offered by the particular PLMN.
Same responses apply to arguments regarding the remaining dependent claims, see page 10 of the remarks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZI YE whose telephone number is (571)270-1039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455