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 .
General Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to Applicant’s response filed 05/07/2026.
Application filed: 04/10/2024
Applicant’s PgPUB: 2024/0422660
Claims:
Claims 34-55 are pending.
Claims 34-55 are elected.
Claims 34 and 46 are independent.
Claims 1-15 and 21-33 are canceled.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Preliminary Amendment.
Preliminary amendment filed 04/10/2024.
IDS:
Previous IDS:
IDS filed 04/10/2024 has been considered.
Priority/Continuity Data:
This Application claims priority to European Application No. EP 21382913.8 filed 10/11/2021.
This Application claims priority to European Application No. EP 21382911.2 filed 10/11/2021.
This Application is the 371 National Entry of the International Patent Application No., PCT/EP2022/078279 filed 10/11/2022.
Election/Restriction:
Election/Restriction filed on 05/07/2026.
Applicant has elected claims 34-55.
Applicant has withdrawn claims 16-20.
Claim Objections
Claim 45 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 45 states in part, “… dummy application programming interface root, apiroot,.”. The last part of this phrase states “, apiroot,.”. The comma-period after “apiroot”. Examiner will assume this is an accidental grammatical error and ignore the comma after “apiroot”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 34, 40, 41, 46 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by International Application Publication No. WO 2020/020474 A1 to Martinez del la Cruz et al. (“Martinez”).
As to claim 34, Martinez discloses:
a method performed by a first network function, NF, in a core network, CN, of a first public land mobile network, PLMN, the method comprising:
receiving a service operation request from a NF service consumer, NFc, in the first PLMN (Fig. 6, 601 of Martinez);
performing an NF discovery procedure to identify a NF service producer, NFp, to which the service operation request can be transmitted (Fig. 6, 601 of Martinez);
determining that the NFp is located in a second PLMN (Fig. 6, 602, 603 of Martinez); and
in response to determining that the NFp is located in the second PLMN, delegating selection of the NFp to a second NF in the second PLMN (Fig. 6, 604 of Martinez).
As to claim 40, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 34, and
further comprising:
performing initial selection of the NFp after performing the NF discovery procedure (Fig. 5, p. 2 ll. 10-19 – Martinez teaches the NF service consumers discover and select NF service producers dynamically using a Network Repository Function (NRF). The NRF may be a logical function that is used to maintain the NF profile of available instances of NF service producers and their supported services. The NRF may also be used to receive NF service Discovery Requests from NF service consumers, and provide the information of the available instances of corresponding NF service producers to the requesting NF service consumer.).
As to claim 41, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 34, and
further comprising:
determining whether initial selection of the NFp should be delegated to the second network function in the second PLMN (Fig. 5, Fig. 6 of Martinez).
As to claim 46, Martinez discloses:
a method performed by a first network function, NF, in a core network, CN, of a first public land mobile network, PLMN, the method comprising:
receiving a service operation request from a NF consumer, NFc, in the first PLMN (Fig. 6, 601 of Martinez);
performing an NF discovery procedure to identify a NF producer, NFp, to which the service operation request can be transmitted (Fig. 6, 601 of Martinez);
determining that the NFp is located in a second PLMN (Fig. 6, 602, 603 of Martinez);
determining that the service operation request should be sent to a second network function in the first PLMN (Fig. 5, 502 of Martinez);
in response to determining that the service operation request should be sent to the second network function in the first PLMN (Fig. 5, 502 of Martinez):
transmitting the service operation request to the second network function (Fig. 5, 503 of Martinez); and
transmitting an indication to the second network function that the NFp is located in a second PLMN (Fig. 6, 604 of Martinez).
As to claim 50, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 46, and
wherein determining that the NFp is located in the second PLMN comprises performing a network repository function, NRF, discovery operation (Fig. 6, 602, 603, 606 of Martinez.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 35-39, 42-45, 47-49 and 51-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Application Publication No. WO 2020/020474 A1 to Martinez del la Cruz et al. (“Martinez”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0306326 A1 to Bykampadi et al. (“Bykampadi”).
As to claim 35, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 34,
Bykampadi discloses what Martinez does not expressly disclose.
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein the first network function comprises a service communication proxy, SCP, in the CN (Fig. 1B of Bykampadi).
Martinez and Bykampadi are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to 5G.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a SCP for as discussed in Bykampadi with PLMN determination for network functions as discussed in Martinez by adding the functionality of Bykampadi to the system/method of Martinez in order to enhance hop by hop security (Bykampadi, ¶0004).
As to claim 36, Martinez and Bykampadi discloses:
method of claim 35, and
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein determining that the NFp is located in the second PLMN comprises obtaining SCP domain route information for the NFp, comprising obtaining the SCP domain route information for the NFp from a network repository function, NRF, in the second PLMN (¶0102 – Bykampadi teaches Furthermore, if the { apiRoot} received in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header is an IP address instead ofFQDN, then the SEPP-p 180 may need to set the SNI TLS extension to the FQDN of the target SCP-p 140, e.g., by retrieving the FQDN information from the associated NRF-p 160, or by using a cached FQDN information related to the NF service request routing for the target NFp 120 via the SCP-p 140.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 37, Martinez and Bykampadi discloses:
method of claim 35, and
Martinez discloses:
wherein determining that the NFp is located in the second PLMN comprises performing a network repository function, NRF, discovery operation, wherein a NRF response in the NRF discovery operation indicates that the NFp is located in the second PLMN (Fig. 6, 602, 603, 606 of Martinez). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 38, Martinez and Bykampadi discloses:
method of claim 34, and
Bykampadi discloses what Martinez does not expressly disclose.
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein delegating selection of the NFp to the second NF in the second PLMN comprises transmitting the service operation request to the second NF in the second PLMN together with service based interface, SBI, discovery parameters (¶0092 – Bykampadi teaches Then, the service request may be routed 318 to the NFp 120 (in the HPLMN 102-2) via the SEPP-p 180 using the target FQDN information in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header of the service request.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 39, Martinez and Bykampadi discloses:
method of claim 38, and
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein transmitting the service operation request to the second NF in the second PLMN comprises transmitting the service operation request via a security edge protection proxy, SEPP (Fig.1C, Fig. 4, ¶0099 – Bykampadi teaches/shows communications between networks via SEPPs). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 42, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 34,
Bykampadi discloses what Martinez does not expressly disclose.
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein delegating selection of the NFp to the second NF in the second PLMN comprises transmitting the service operation request to a security edge protection proxy, SEPP, in the second PLMN (¶0092 – Bykampadi teaches Then, the service request may be routed 318 to the NFp 120 (in the HPLMN 102-2) via the SEPP-p 180 using the target FQDN information in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header of the service request.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 43, Martinez and Bykampadi discloses:
method of claim 42, and
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein transmitting the service operation request to the SEPP in the second PLMN comprises transmitting the service operation request to the SEPP together with service based interface, SBI, discovery parameters associated with the request (¶0092 – Bykampadi teaches Then, the service request may be routed 318 to the NFp 120 (in the HPLMN 102-2) via the SEPP-p 180 using the target FQDN information in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header of the service request.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 44, Martinez and Bykampadi discloses:
method of claim 42, and
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein transmitting the service operation request to the SEPP in the second PLMN comprises transmitting the service operation request to the SEPP together with a header sbi-target-apiroot set to an application programming interface root, apiroot, of the SEPP in the second PLMN (¶0077, ¶0087, ¶0089, ¶0092 – Bykampadi teaches the service request may be routed 318 to the NFp 120 (in the HPLMN 102-2) via the SEPP-p 180 using the target FQDN information in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header of the service request.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 45, Martinez and Bykampadi discloses:
method of claim 42, and
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein transmitting the service operation request to the SEPP in the second PLMN comprises transmitting the service operation request to the SEPP together with a header sbi-target-apiroot set to a dummy application programming interface root, apiroot, (¶0077, ¶0087, ¶0089, ¶0092 – Bykampadi teaches the service request may be routed 318 to the NFp 120 (in the HPLMN 102-2) via the SEPP-p 180 using the target FQDN information in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header of the service request.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 47, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 46, and
Bykampadi discloses what Martinez does not expressly disclose.
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein the first network function comprises a service communication proxy, SCP, in the CN (Fig. 1B of Bykampadi). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 48, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 46, and
Bykampadi discloses what Martinez does not expressly disclose.
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein determining that the NFp is located in the second PLMN comprises obtaining SCP domain route information for the NFp (¶0102 – Bykampadi teaches Furthermore, if the { apiRoot} received in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header is an IP address instead ofFQDN, then the SEPP-p 180 may need to set the SNI TLS extension to the FQDN of the target SCP-p 140, e.g., by retrieving the FQDN information from the associated NRF-p 160, or by using a cached FQDN information related to the NF service request routing for the target NFp 120 via the SCP-p 140.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 49, Martinez and Bykampadi discloses:
method of claim 48, and
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein obtaining the SCP domain route information for the NFp comprises obtaining the SCP domain route information for the NFp from a network repository function, NRF, in the second PLMN (¶0102 – Bykampadi teaches Furthermore, if the { apiRoot} received in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header is an IP address instead ofFQDN, then the SEPP-p 180 may need to set the SNI TLS extension to the FQDN of the target SCP-p 140, e.g., by retrieving the FQDN information from the associated NRF-p 160, or by using a cached FQDN information related to the NF service request routing for the target NFp 120 via the SCP-p 140.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 51, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 50, and
Bykampadi discloses what Martinez does not expressly disclose.
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein a NRF response in the NRF discovery operation indicates that the NFp is located in the second PLMN (Fig. 6, 602, 603, 606 of Martinez). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 52, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 50, and
Bykampadi discloses what Martinez does not expressly disclose.
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein a NRF response in the NRF discovery operation includes a fully qualified domain name for the NFp, and wherein determining that the NFp is located in the second PLMN comprises checking the fully qualified domain name to determine that the NFp is located in the second PLMN (¶0092 – Bykampadi teaches Then, the service request may be routed 318 to the NFp 120 (in the HPLMN 102-2) via the SEPP-p 180 using the target FQDN information in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header of the service request.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 53, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 46, and
Bykampadi discloses what Martinez does not expressly disclose.
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein the second NF comprises a service communication proxy, SCP, in the CN (Fig. 1B of Bykampadi). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 54, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 46, and
Bykampadi discloses what Martinez does not expressly disclose.
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein the indication to the second network function that the NFp is located in a second PLMN comprises a flag in the service operation request (¶0092 – Bykampadi teaches Then, the service request may be routed 318 to the NFp 120 (in the HPLMN 102-2) via the SEPP-p 180 using the target FQDN information in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header of the service request.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
As to claim 55, Martinez discloses:
method of claim 46, and
Bykampadi discloses what Martinez does not expressly disclose.
Bykampadi discloses:
wherein transmitting the service operation request to the second NF comprises transmitting the service operation request to the second NF together with service based interface, SBI, discovery parameters associated with the request (¶0092 – Bykampadi teaches Then, the service request may be routed 318 to the NFp 120 (in the HPLMN 102-2) via the SEPP-p 180 using the target FQDN information in the 3gpp-Sbi-Target-apiRoot header of the service request.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 35.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR A ELFERVIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (10:00 AM CST) - Friday (4:00 PM CST).
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAYLOR A ELFERVIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights