Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 06/23/2026. Claims 1, 4, 25, 28, 42 and 46 have been amended. Claims 3, 13-24, 27, 33-41, 44, 45 and 48-51 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 25, 26, 28-32, 42, 43, , 46, 47 and 52-54 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 25, 26, 28-32, 42, 43, 46, 47 and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1 and 42 recite “sending a first message to a receiver NF, the first message comprising a new Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) header which comprises an NF instance identifier (ID) of the sender NF, an NF service instance ID of the sender NF, an NF instance ID of the receiver NF, and an NF service instance ID of the receiver NF” and claims 25 and 46 recite “receiving a third message from a sender network function (NF) or a receiver NF, the third message comprising a new HTTP header which comprises an NF instance ID of the sender NF, an NF service instance ID of the sender NF, an NF instance ID of the receiver NF, and an NF service instance ID of the receiver NF; and sending a fourth message to the receiver NF or the sender NF, the fourth message comprising the new HTTP header which comprises the NF instance ID of the sender NF, the NF service instance ID of the sender NF, the NF instance ID of the receiver NF, and the NF service instance ID of the receiver NF”, are directed to generic computer module interfacing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as follows:
The limitations of “sending a first message to a receiver NF, …” of claims 1 and 42, the limitations “receiving a third message from a sender network function (NF) or a receiver NF, …” and “sending a fourth message to the receiver NF or the sender NF, …” of claims 25 and 46, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (input and output between associated users/devices/services). That is, other than reciting “a processor and a memory coupled to the processor” of claims 42 and 46, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims 1, 25, 42 and 46 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 42 and 46 only recite using “a processor and a memory coupled to the processor” to perform both the sending and receiving steps. The processor and memory in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the sending and receiving steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 5-12, 26, 28-32, 43, 47 and 52-54 do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more to overcome the deficiency of independent claims 1, 25, 42 and 46, respectively. Taken alone, or in ordered combination, none of the additional elements amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claims are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 25 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
6. Claim 25 recites the limitations "a third message" in line 3 and “a fourth message” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim (missing a first message and a second message in the claim).
7. Claim 46 is a corresponding SCP claim reciting similar limitations as of method claim 25, hence, it is rejected the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 25, 26, 28-31, 42-43, 46-47 and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S BYKAMPADI et al. (US 2022/0353255 A1), in view of BODOG et al (US 2019/0109766 A1), hereinafter “BYKAMPADI” and “BODOG”.
10. As to claim 1, BYKAMPADI teaches a method performed by a sender network function (NF), the method comprising:
sending a first message to a receiver NF ([0065]: the first instance of the NF service consumer 22 sends to the authorization server 20 an access token request; and [0092]: the first instance of the NF service consumer 22 sends to the network function service producer 24 a request to access the service provided by the network function service producer 24. This request referred to as a service request including the access token), the first message comprising a new Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) header which comprises an NF instance identifier (ID) of the sender NF and an NF instance ID of the receiver NF ([0065-0071]: The access token request referred to as “Nnrf_AccessToken_Get_request” [via HTTP signaling] may include an NF instance identifier of the requesting first instance of the NF service consumer 22 and an NF instance identifier of the specific NF service producer 24 for which the access token is requested).
BYKAMPADI does not explicitly teach “the new HTTP header further comprises an NF service instance ID of the sender NF and an NF service instance ID of the receiver NF”. In an analogous art, BODOG teaches “the new HTTP header further comprises an NF service instance ID of the sender NF and an NF service instance ID of the receiver NF” ([0044-0045]: the instantiate network service (NS) operation may include a move VNF operation/command that indicates to the NFVO to move one or more VNF instances from one source NS to another target NS … the move operation/command may include one or more Network Service Instance ID(s) of the source and/or target Network Service Instance ID(s) of the source and/or target Network Services to/from which the VNF instances are being moved, and/or may include VNF Instance ID(s) to identify the VNF instances being moved).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of BYKAMPADI and BODOG to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system to direct a message to the precise target container or process.
11. As to claim 2, BYKAMPADI-BODOG teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the NF instance ID of the sender NF and the NF instance ID of the receiver NF are used to identify a message exchanged between the sender NF and the receiver NF (BYKAMPADI, [0065-0071] and [0092]: the NF instance ID of the NF service consumer 22 and the NF service producer 24 used to identify the sender and receiver of the service/access token request message).
12. As to claim 4, BYKAMPADI-BODOG teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the NF instance ID of the sender NF, the NF instance ID of the receiver NF, the NF service instance ID of the sender NF and the NF service instance ID of the receiver NF are used to identify a message exchanged between the sender NF and the receiver NF (BYKAMPADI, [0071] and [0074]: The scope parameters (such as NF instance ID and NF service instance ID of the NF service consumer and producer) can indicate that the bindings relates to notifications to subscriptions events, notification to other events, or to other services that the NF service consumer produces).
13. As to claim 5, BYKAMPADI-BODOG teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first message is a service request message (BYKAMPADI, [0092]: a service request message) or a notification request message.
14. As to claim 6, BYKAMPADI-BODOG teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second message from the receiver NF (BYKAMPDADI, [0090]: the authorization server 20 may send the access token to the first instance of the NF service consumer 22), wherein the second message comprises the NF instance ID of the sender NF and the NF instance ID of the receiver NF (BYKAMPDADI, [0077-0082]: the authorization server 20 authorizes the requesting first instance of the NF service consumer 22 and generates an access token including an NF instance of the requesting first instance of the NF service consumer 22 and an NF instance identifier of the specific NF service producer 24 to which the access token relates).
15. As to claim 7, BYKAMPADI-BODOG teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the second message further comprises the NF service instance ID of the sender NF and the NF service instance ID of the receiver NF (BELLING, [0076-0078] and [0080-0082]).
16. As to claim 8, BYKAMPADI-BODOG teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the second message is an HTTP message (BYKAMPDADI, [0090]: the authorization server 20 may send the access token to the first instance of the NF service consumer 22. This may be sent via the Nnrf service-based interface, i.e., via an Nnrf_AccessToken_Get Response).
17. As to claim 9, BYKAMPADI-BODOG teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the second message is a service response message (BYKAMPDADI, [0061]: In response to the request, the authorization server authorizes the requesting NF service consumer and generates and returns an access token to the requesting NF service consumer) or a notification response message.
18. As to claim 10, BYKAMPADI-BODOG teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the sender NF is an NF service consumer or an NF service producer (BYKAMPDADI, Figs. 2A-C: the requesting NF service consumer 22) and the receiver NF is an NF service producer or an NF service consumer (BYKAMPDADI, Fig. 2A-C: the authorization server 20 or the NF service producer 24).
19. As to claim 11, BYKAMPADI-BODOG teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the sender NF is an HTTP client and the receiver NF is an HTTP server (BYKAMPDADI, [0060]: The authorization server may be implemented by another network function, for instance the Network Repository Function (NRF); and [0065]: the access token request may be sent via the service-based interface exhibited by the NRF, hence, the requesting NF service consumer 22 can be referred as an HTTP client requesting an access token from the authorization sever 20 referred as an HTTP server).
20. As to claim 25, claim 25 recites similar limitations as of the combination of method claims 1 and 6, wherein the limitations are performed by a service communication proxy (SCP) (BYKAMPDADI, FIGS. 2B-C and [0107]: the NF service consumer instance 22 may communicate with the NF service producer instance 24 via the SCP), and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as claims 1 and 6.
21. As to claims 26, 28-31, claims 26, 28-31 are method claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 2, 4, 5, 9-11 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
22. As to claims 42-43 and 52-53, claims 42-43 and 52-53 are corresponding sender NF claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 1-2, 6, 8 and 11 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
23. As to claims 46-47 and 54, claims 46-47 and 54 are corresponding SCP claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 25-26 and 31 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
24. Claims 12 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BYKAMPADI-BODOG, in view of BYKAMPADI et al (US 2022/0240089 A1), hereinafter “BYKAMPADI-089”.
25. As to claim 12, BYKAMPADI-BODOG teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the first message and second message further comprises an NF set ID of the sender NF (BYKAMPADI, [0065]: the access token request includes an identifier of the set of network function service consumers of which the first network function service consumer 22 is a member), but does not explicitly disclose “the first message and second message further comprises an NF set ID of the receiver NF”.
In an analogous art, BYKAMPADI-089 teaches “the first message and second message further comprises an NF set ID of the receiver NF” ([0071-0072]: the NF service consumer 302 includes the NF Set ID of the target NF producer in the request to NRF 304); [0076]: NRF 304 sends an access token response to NF Consumer 302; and [0088]: NRF 304 may just include the NF Set ID in the access token).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of BYPAMPADI- BODOG and BYKAMPADI-089 to include the NF Set ID of the target NF producer in the token access request to enable the NRF/authorization server to remove NF producers from the list of NF producers available for the NF consumer to select, based on readily-available factors such as location of the UE, location of the NF consumer, whether the load on the NF producer has crossed the overload threshold limit, etc. ([0065]).
26. As to claim 32, claim 32 is a method claim that recites similar limitations as of method claim 12 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
27. Applicant’s arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Mohan et al. (US 2009/0168783 A1) ([0035]).
Rajput et al. (US 2023/0072290 A1) (Table 2).
29. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s SPE, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights