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
The amendments filed on October 15, 2025 have been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 17, and 19. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 15, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated July 25, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, in page 7 of the Remarks, “Kahn discloses that virtual network functions (VNFs), to be used by a consuming network function, can be grouped and given a group ID where a group of VNF instances may all be functionally the same or similar, for example, " a group of VNFs may include VNFs which each provide an access management function (AMF), while another group of VNFs may each provide a session management function (SMF)." (Kahn, pg. 4, 11. 19-21.) Kahn also discloses that "the VNF instances in the group may all perform the same or similar network function and/or may all be similarly configured (for example, same or similar version of software, same or similar manufacturer, same or similar network function, same or similar slice, and/or the like.)" (Kahn, pg. 8, 11. 27-30.) Kahn, however, does not disclose that a consuming network function first selects a group of VNFs and then selects an VNF instance from the group”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 2, step 214, of Kahn shows determining group and instances of the VNF as explained in page 10, lines 17-18, “In some example embodiments, the metadata may also include at least one group ID identifying VNF groups (of the same or similar type of VNF functional type) and/or instance IDs identifying specific instances of VNFs.”. Fig. 2, steps 220 and 222, show selecting an VNF instance of the group.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kahn et al. (WIPO Publication No. WO 2020002761 A1), hereinafter, Kahn.
Regarding claim 1:
A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising (see Fig. 7 and corresponding description at page 10):
accessing a plurality of selection lists, wherein: each respective selection list in the plurality of selection lists is associated with a respective service type provided by a communication network, each respective selection list in the plurality of selection lists includes identifications of respective instances of a same type of network function for user equipment associated with the respective service type, and the respective instances of the same type network function in each respective selection list are configured for the respective service type (Fig. 2, step 210, discloses accessing list of VNF. Fig. 5 shows plurality of groups of VNF wherein each group comprises plurality of similar type VNF instances. Page 4, lines 17-27, discloses plurality of groups of VNF with respective group identifier to service UE session as stated “A group of VNFs may be functionally the same or similar in some respects but currently have different UE session data for different corresponding UEs. For example, a group of VNF instances may all be functionally similar. To illustrate further, a group of VNFs may include VNFs which each provide an access management function (AMF), while another group of VNFs may each provide a session management function (SMF). Each of the VNFs in a given group may be functionally the same or similar, and each of the VNF instances in a group may be configured with different session information for UEs being served (e.g., those UEs with on going transactions). Each group of VNF instances may also be identified by a group identifier (ID), in accordance with some example embodiments. The group IDs may be assigned by a network management plane and stored at, for example, a registry an example of which is a network repository function (NRF).”. Page 16, lines 20-23 discloses a group is identified by a group ID and an instance of VNF is identified by a pointer as stated “In some example embodiments, the consuming NF may store both the VNF group ID and a pointer to the VNF (if populated) as part of the UE session information such as the UE context data.”);
identifying a first service type associated with a first user equipment (page 9, lines 30-35, discloses identifying type of function requested by the UE as stated “For example, the AMF 154 may need a producing NF, such as a VNF instance configured to provide a SMF 156 type network function. When this is the case, the AMF 154 may send to the registry 166 a request for candidate VNF instances, and the request may include the type of function requested (which in this example is the SMF network function).”);
choosing a first selection list of the plurality of selection lists that is associated with the first service type ( Fig. 2, step 214, shows determining group and instances of the VNF as explained in page 10, lines 17-18, “In some example embodiments, the metadata may also include at least one group ID identifying VNF groups (of the same or similar type of VNF functional type) and/or instance IDs identifying specific instances of VNFs.”);
selecting a first instance of a network function in the first selection list (Fig. 2, steps 220 and 222, show selecting an VNF instance of the group); and
using the first instance to provide the network function (Fig. 2, step 252, discloses process the request using the selected VNF as stated in page 14, line 10, “This selected VNF instance may then process, at 252, the UE request 205.”).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kahn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kahn further teaches wherein the network function is a user plane function ( page 1, lines 33-36, discloses the network function is user plane function as stated “The selected network function instance may be configured to provide at least an access management function, a session management function, a policy control function, a user plane function, a unified data management function, an authentication server function, a network exposure function, and/or a network slice selection function”).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kahn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kahn further teaches wherein the network function is a control plane function (page 1, lines 33-36, discloses the network function is a session management function).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kahn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kahn further teaches wherein the service type is a mobile edge cloud, an internet of things, a fixed wireless broadband, or a carrier network edge (Fig. 1A shows 5G network).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kahn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kahn further teaches wherein instances of the network function are ordered in the first selection list to improve latency ( page 19, lines 37-38, and page 20, lines 1-4, discloses arranging VNF to minimize latency as stated “In the example of FIG. 5, VNF groups (e.g., group 1, group 2, and group 6) may be defined so that the VNF instances assigned to a given group are functionally the same or similar with respect to the same type of network function, offering the same service, sharing the same UDSF, being from the same manufacturer, supporting the same network slice(s), being geographically located in close proximity (e.g., to ensure latency of signaling is reduced and/or enabling negligible performance impact to the system), and/or otherwise share a common attribute.”).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kahn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kahn further teaches wherein the selecting is performed on a network slice basis ( page 8, lines 27-30, discloses selecting based on network slice as stated “In some example embodiments, the VNF instances in the group may all perform the same or similar network function and/or may all be similarly configured (for example, same or similar version of software, same or similar manufacturer, same or similar network function, same or similar slice, and/or the like). ”).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kahn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kahn further teaches wherein the selecting is performed based on a data network name (page 13, lines 24-26, discloses selecting based on fully qualified domain name as stated “ For example, the pointer may comprise an IP address, fully qualified domain name, MAC address, and/or other indication of the identity or location of a group ID and/or VNF instance”).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kahn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kahn further teaches wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment (see at least page 23, lines 15-27, discussing implementing on virtual machines).
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.
Claims 6-8, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colin in view of Koodli (US PGPUB No. US 20210329496 A1), hereinafter, Koodli.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kahn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kahn does not teach wherein the selecting from the first selection list is performed in a round-robin fashion.
Koodli teaches wherein the selecting from the first selection list is performed in a round-robin fashion (paragraph 0051 discloses selecting based on round robin approach).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn to incorporate the teaching of Koodli about using round robin approach. One would be motivated to use round robin approach to prevent underutilization of network function (see paragraph 0051 of Koodli).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kahn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kahn does not teach wherein the selecting from the first selection list is based on traffic load.
Koodli teaches wherein the selecting from the first selection list is based on traffic load (paragraph 0053 discloses selecting based on load).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn to incorporate the teaching of Koodli about selecting based on load. One would be motivated to do that to satisfy the desired load criteria (see paragraph 0053 of Koodli).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Kahn in view of Koodli teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as shown above.
Kahn does not teach wherein a configurable load threshold is used during the selecting.
Koodli teaches wherein a configurable load threshold is used during the selecting (paragraph 0053 discloses using threshold for selecting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn to incorporate the teaching of Koodli about using threshold for selecting. One would be motivated to do that to satisfy the desired load threshold (see paragraph 0053 of Koodli).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kahn teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kahn does not teach wherein the plurality of selection lists is created and/or maintained by an artificial intelligence/machine learning.
Koodli teaches wherein the plurality of selection lists is created and/or maintained by an artificial intelligence/machine learning (paragraph 0063 discloses selection using machine learning approach).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn to incorporate the teaching of Koodli about using machine learning. One would be motivated to do to improve the efficiency of the selection process (see paragraph 0063 of Koodli).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as the combination of claims 1 and 6 . Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 recites similar limitation as claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 recites similar limitation as claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Kahn in view of Koodli teach all the limitations of claim 14 as shown above.
Kahn further teaches wherein the first selection list is a customized list that is prioritized based on performance level (page 6, lines 24-30, discloses grouping VNF instances based on performance).
Claim 18 recites similar limitation as claim 12. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as the combination of claims 1 and 6 . Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Examiner attempted multiple telephone calls to the attorney of record to discuss about the objected claim but could not reach out.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
January 22, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444