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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants' communication filed on 3/7/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-15 are currently presented in the instant application.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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 claim recites “computer-readable storage medium…” but the term “computer-readable storage medium”, given its broadest reasonable interpretation read in light of the specification, does not exclude transitory forms of computer-readable media such as signals, e.g. The claim(s) is/are directed to a signal per se, mere information in the form of data, a contract between two parties, or a human being.
Therefore, the claim encompasses non-statutory subject matter.
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 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, 2, 4-8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 20210258864 (hereinafter referred to as Jeong).
Consider claim 1, Jeong teaches a method performed by a second network node (see at least ¶ [0119], Fig. 5, “…master NF…”) (14) for handling a network function, NF instance in a communication network (see at least ¶ [0118], Fig. 5), the method comprising
receiving (301) from a first network node (see at least ¶ [0122], Fig. 5, “…other NF instance…”), a register request for the NF instance, wherein the register request comprises an NF profile of the NF instance (see at least ¶ [0118], Fig. 5, “…an NF set may be newly created or added, or configuration information of an NF set may be updated at operation 501…” and see at least ¶ [0119], “…The master NF may perform a process for registering the profile of the NF set to which it belongs with the NRF (or SCP) at operation 502. … the service request may include the identifier (ID) of the NF set to be registered and NF set profile. The NF set profile may include identifiers of NF instances belonging to the NF set…”); and
including (302), with the proviso that the NF profile of the NF instance does not contain an indication of an NF Set ID, an NF Set ID to the NF profile of the NF instance (see at least ¶ [0120], “…The NRF may use the received information to store the profile of the NF set and generate resources for this at operation 503. Thereafter, the resource for the NF set profile can be identified by the NF set ID…” and see at least ¶ [0122], “…The NRF may deliver the NF set profile to other NF instances belonging to the NF set to notify the created/updated set profile at operation 505. Here, the NRF may use an NF status notify or NF set status notify service…”).
Consider claim 7, Jeong teaches a second network node (see at least ¶ [0119], Fig. 5, “…master NF…”) (14) for handling a network function, NF, instance in a communication network, wherein the second network node is configured to:
receive from a first network node (see at least ¶ [0122], Fig. 5, “…other NF instance…”), a register request for the NF instance, wherein the register request comprises an NF profile of the NF instance (see at least ¶ [0118], Fig. 5, “…an NF set may be newly created or added, or configuration information of an NF set may be updated at operation 501…” and see at least ¶ [0119], “…The master NF may perform a process for registering the profile of the NF set to which it belongs with the NRF (or SCP) at operation 502. … the service request may include the identifier (ID) of the NF set to be registered and NF set profile. The NF set profile may include identifiers of NF instances belonging to the NF set…”); and
include, with the proviso that the NF profile of the NF instance does not contain an indication of an NF Set ID, an NF Set ID to the NF profile of the NF instance (see at least ¶ [0120], “…The NRF may use the received information to store the profile of the NF set and generate resources for this at operation 503. Thereafter, the resource for the NF set profile can be identified by the NF set ID…” and see at least ¶ [0122], “…The NRF may deliver the NF set profile to other NF instances belonging to the NF set to notify the created/updated set profile at operation 505. Here, the NRF may use an NF status notify or NF set status notify service…”).
Consider claim 15, Jeong teaches a second network node (see at least ¶ [0119], Fig. 5, “…master NF…”) handling a network function, NF, instance in a communication network, wherein the second network node comprises processor circuitry and a memory for storing instructions executable by said processor circuitry (see at least ¶ [0174], “…The one or more programs stored in the computer-readable storage medium are configured to be executable by one or more processors of an electronic device…”), and
whereby the processing circuitry is operative to receive from a first network node (see at least ¶ [0122], Fig. 5, “…other NF instance…”), a register request for the NF instance, wherein the register request comprises an NF profile of the NF instance (see at least ¶ [0118], Fig. 5, “…an NF set may be newly created or added, or configuration information of an NF set may be updated at operation 501…” and see at least ¶ [0119], “…The master NF may perform a process for registering the profile of the NF set to which it belongs with the NRF (or SCP) at operation 502. … the service request may include the identifier (ID) of the NF set to be registered and NF set profile. The NF set profile may include identifiers of NF instances belonging to the NF set…”); and
include, with the proviso that the NF profile of the NF instance does not contain an indication of an NF Set ID, an NF Set ID to the NF profile of the NF instance (see at least ¶ [0120], “…The NRF may use the received information to store the profile of the NF set and generate resources for this at operation 503. Thereafter, the resource for the NF set profile can be identified by the NF set ID…” and see at least ¶ [0122], “…The NRF may deliver the NF set profile to other NF instances belonging to the NF set to notify the created/updated set profile at operation 505. Here, the NRF may use an NF status notify or NF set status notify service…”).
Consider claims 2, 8 (depends on at least claims 1, 7), Jeong discloses the limitations of claims 1, 7 as applied to claim rejection 1, 7 above and further discloses:
Jeong teaches wherein the included NF Set ID is a unique identity in the communication network (see at least ¶ [0095], “…an identifier that can identify the corresponding NF set (NF set ID or ID of the NF instance that manages NF set information…” and see at least ¶ [0096], “…identified by an AMF set ID or an ID of the NF that manages information for each set…”).
Consider claims 4, 10 (depends on at least claims 1, 7), Jeong discloses the limitations of claims 1, 7 as applied to claim rejection 1, 7 above and further discloses:
Jeong teaches wherein the NF set ID identifies one or more NF instances that have access to a same context data (see at least ¶ [0095], “…an identifier that can identify the corresponding NF set (NF set ID or ID of the NF instance that manages NF set information…” and see at least ¶ [0096], “…identified by an AMF set ID or an ID of the NF that manages information for each set…”).
Consider claims 5, 11 (depends on at least claims 1, 7), Jeong discloses the limitations of claims 1, 7 as applied to claim rejection 1, 7 above and further discloses:
Jeong teaches providing (303) the included NF set ID to a discovery process for discovery NF instances in the communication network (see at least ¶ [0019], “…receiving, from a service communication proxy (SCP) entity, a network function (NF) discovery request message including first information associated with a target SCP entity, and transmitting, to the SCP entity, an NF discovery response message including second information associated with the target SCP entity based on the first information…”).
Consider claims 6, 12 (depends on at least claims 1, 7), Jeong discloses the limitations of claims 1, 7 as applied to claim rejection 1, 7 above and further discloses:
Jeong teaches wherein the NF instance is for an NF comprising one or more of the following: Session Management Function, SMF, Access Management Function, AMF, Authentication Service Function, AUSF, Policy Control Function, PCF, Unified Data Manager, UDM, Network Repository Function, NRF, and Network Exposure Function, NEF (see at least ¶ [0057], “…the NF may be at least one entity among an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity, a session management function (SMF) entity, and a network slice selection function (NSSF) entity. However, embodiments of the disclosure may be equally applied even when an NF is actually implemented as an instance (e.g., AMF instance, SMF instance, or NSSF instance)…”).
Consider claim 13 (depends on at least claim 1), Jeong discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Jeong teaches a computer program product comprising instructions, which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry the method according to claim 1, as performed by the second network node (see at least ¶ [0174], “…The one or more programs stored in the computer-readable storage medium are configured to be executable by one or more processors of an electronic device…”).
Consider claim 14 (depends on at least claim 1), Jeong discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Jeong teaches a computer-readable storage medium, having stored there on a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out the method according to claim 1, as performed by the second network node (see at least ¶ [0174], “…The one or more programs stored in the computer-readable storage medium are configured to be executable by one or more processors of an electronic device…”).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20210258864 (hereinafter referred to as Jeong) in view of US Patent No.: 10509638 (hereinafter referred to as Gala).
Consider claim 3, 9 (depends on at least claim 1, 7), Jeong discloses the limitations of claim 1, 7 as applied to claim rejection 1, 7 above and further discloses:
Jeong disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Jeong does not particularly disclose wherein the included NF Set ID comprises a string of numbers and/or letters out of a specific string series for the second radio network node to use. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Gala, which teaches wherein the included NF Set ID comprises a string of numbers and/or letters out of a specific string series for the second radio network node to use (see Gala, at least Col. 6, Line 15-18, “…the container ID (304) may be a string of characters (e.g., letters, numbers, symbols, etc.) that may be used to uniquely identify…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Jeong disclosed invention, and have wherein the included NF Set ID comprises a string of numbers and/or letters out of a specific string series for the second radio network node to use, as taught by Gala, thereby, to provide a systems management service for standardizing systems management functionality and interfacing in a single, unified architecture, as discussed by Gala, (see at least Col. 2, Line 48-50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG A NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-7264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Anthony S Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/CHUONG A NGO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645