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 .
Application # 18/715,045 was filed on 5/30/2024.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed and were cancelled via preliminary amendment. Claims 21-40 were added via preliminary amendment filed on 5/30/2024. Therefore, Claims 21-40 are subject to examination.
An IDS filed on 9/12/2025 has been fully considered and entered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0274392 (hereinafter Dao) in view of Winn et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2022/0286431 (hereinafter Winn)
With respect to claim 21, Dao teaches a device, the device comprising:
-a processor configured to: generate a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) using a service operation (Paragraph 81, 82), a producer identifier (i.e. address of T-NEF), wherein the service operation is associated with a network function (i.e. message includes information relating to the T-=NEF for example information relating to one or more network function profile)(Paragraph 81-84, 183-85), and wherein the producer identifier identifies a producer device that provides the service operation (i.e. address of T-NEF)(Paragraph 145-147)
- generate a target address using the FQDN (i.e. new notification target address, FQDN defined new event) and an event name (i.e. defines new event), wherein the event name indicates a network function event (i.e. which defines the new receiving NF, the new notification target NF ID is the NF id which defines the new event receiving NF) (Paragraph 127);
-send a request message to the producer device (i.e. producer T-NEF) using the target address (i.e. using target address)(Paragraph 63-65), wherein the request message indicates a request to subscribe to the service operation for the network function event (i.e. subscription messages) (Paragraph 68-69, 135)
- receive a confirmation message (i.e. ACK) from the producer device (Paragraph 197-199), wherein the confirmation message indicates that the device is subscribed to the service operation for the network function event (Paragraph 197-199)
- receive an event message from the service operation provided by the producer device, wherein the event message indicates that the network function event has occurred (i.e. T-NEF forwarding event notification which includes event ID, time stamp, notification correlation information, event information/report)(Paragraph 205, 229).
Dao does not explicitly teach parent domain.
Winn teaches having a FQDN using producer identifier (i.e. device with host name “myhost” in the parent domain) and a parent domain (i.e. “example.com” has fully domain name “myhost.example.com”. The FQDN distinguishes the device from other host and this way example.com may map to IP addresses wherein the www.example.com maps to a second set of IP addresses) (Paragraph 21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Winn’s teaching in Dao’s teaching to come up with having parent domain. The motivation for doing would for the firewall device performing a DNS resolution processing to determine the relationship between FQDNs and IP addresses.
With respect to claim 22, Dao and Winn teaches the device of claim 21, but Dao further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to establish a transport session (i.e. PDU session) (Paragraph 169) with the producer device (Paragraph 118), and wherein the request message is sent to the producer device using the target address (Paragraph 118) and the transport session (i.e. PDU session. Examiner would like to point out that PDU session carry transport session)(Paragraph 55, 118).
With respect to claim 23, Dao and Winn teaches the device of claim 22, but Dao further teaches wherein the confirmation message received from the producer device is received using the transport session (Paragraph 118, 122, 195)
With respect to claim 24, Dao and Winn teaches the device of claim 22, but Winn further teaches wherein the transport session is at least one of a transmission control protocol (TCP), a user datagram protocol (UDP), or a transport protocol associated with a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) (Paragraph 118)
With respect to claim 25, Dao and Winn teaches the device of claim 22, but Dao further teaches wherein the transport session is a first transport session (I.e. PDU session)(Paragraph 169, 167), wherein the processor is further configured to establish a second transport session with the producer device (i.e. PDU session with the UE)(Paragraph 169, 174), and wherein the event message is received from the service operation provided by the producer device using the second transport session (Paragraph 174-175)
With respect to claim 26, Dao and Winn teaches the device of claim 21, but Dao further teaches wherein the FQDN is a first FQDN, and wherein the event message is received using a second FQDN (Paragraph 91) and wherein the second FQDN comprises the network function event (Paragraph 84, 89), the producer identifier (i.e. IP address and/or T-NEF identifier)(Paragraph 79).
Dao does not explicitly teach parent domain.
Winn teaches having a FQDN using producer identifier (i.e. device with host name “myhost” in the parent domain) and a parent domain (i.e. “example.com” has fully domain name “myhost.example.com”. The FQDN distinguishes the device from other host and this way example.com may map to IP addresses wherein the www.example.com maps to a second set of IP addresses) (Paragraph 21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Winn’s teaching in Dao’s teaching to come up with having parent domain. The motivation for doing would for the firewall device performing a DNS resolution processing to determine the relationship between FQDNs and IP addresses.
With respect to claim 27, Dao and Winn teaches the device of claim 21, but Dao further teaches wherein the FQDN is a first FQDN, and wherein the event message is received using a second FQDN, wherein the processor is further configured to determine event information by decoding the second FQDN (Paragraph 184-186), and wherein the event information comprises the network function event (Paragraph 184-185), the producer identifier (i.e. IP address and/or T-NEF identifier)(Paragraph 79).
Dao does not explicitly teach parent domain.
Winn teaches having a FQDN using producer identifier (i.e. device with host name “myhost” in the parent domain) and a parent domain (i.e. “example.com” has fully domain name “myhost.example.com”. The FQDN distinguishes the device from other host and this way example.com may map to IP addresses wherein the www.example.com maps to a second set of IP addresses) (Paragraph 21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Winn’s teaching in Dao’s teaching to come up with having parent domain. The motivation for doing would for the firewall device performing a DNS resolution processing to determine the relationship between FQDNs and IP addresses.
With respect to claim 28, Dao and Winn teaches the device of claim 21, but Dao further teaches wherein the target address is a uniform resource locator (URL) (Page 6 lines 10-12)
With respect to claim 29, Dao and Winn teaches the device of claim 21, but Dao further teaches wherein the network function is a control plane function (CPF) (Paragraph 37)
With respect to claim 30, Dao and Winn teaches the device of claim 21, but Dao further teaches wherein the service operation is at least one of a notification service or a subscription service (Paragraph 35)
With respect to claim 31, Dao and Winn teaches the device of claim 21, but Dao further teaches wherein the event message further comprises at least one of a consumer identification, the producer identifier (I.e. T-NEF identifier)(Paragraph 79), a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) identification, a server identification, an access token, a JavaScript object notation (JSON) web token, or notification information (i.e. event notification) (Paragraph 185).
With respect to claim 32, Dao teaches a method performed by a device, the method comprising: generating a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) using a service operation(Paragraph 81, 82), a producer identifier (i.e. address of T-NEF), wherein the service operation is associated with a network function (i.e. message includes information relating to the T-=NEF for example information relating to one or more network function profile)(Paragraph 81-84, 183-85), and wherein the producer identifier identifies a producer device that provides the service operation (i.e. address of T-NEF)(Paragraph 145-147)
- generating a target address using the FQDN (i.e. new notification target address, FQDN defined new event) and an event name (i.e. defines new event), wherein the event name indicates a network function event (i.e. which defines the new receiving NF, the new notification target NF ID is the NF id which defines the new event receiving NF) (Paragraph 127);
-sending a request message to the producer device (i.e. producer T-NEF) using the target address (i.e. using target address)(Paragraph 63-65), wherein the request message indicates a request to subscribe to the service operation for the network function event (i.e. subscription messages) (Paragraph 68-69, 135)
- receiving a confirmation message (i.e. ACK) from the producer device (Paragraph 197-199), wherein the confirmation message indicates that the device is subscribed to the service operation for the network function event (Paragraph 197-199)
- receiving an event message from the service operation provided by the producer device, wherein the event message indicates that the network function event has occurred (i.e. T-NEF forwarding event notification which includes event ID, time stamp, notification correlation information, event information/report)(Paragraph 205, 229).
Dao does not explicitly teach parent domain.
Winn teaches having a FQDN using producer identifier (i.e. device with host name “myhost” in the parent domain) and a parent domain (i.e. “example.com” has fully domain name “myhost.example.com”. The FQDN distinguishes the device from other host and this way example.com may map to IP addresses wherein the www.example.com maps to a second set of IP addresses) (Paragraph 21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Winn’s teaching in Dao’s teaching to come up with having parent domain. The motivation for doing would for the firewall device performing a DNS resolution processing to determine the relationship between FQDNs and IP addresses.
With respect to claims 33-40 respectively, teaches same limitations as claims 22-29 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A). Fu et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2022/0232460 which teaches about operation of a service producer and service consumer sending a subscription request to a service producer of the service.
B). McNab et al. U.S. Patent # 10,848,509 which teaches about FQDN which are used by apparatus to detect anomalous behavior.
C). Su et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2018/0131620 which teaches about parent domain having more than one first subdomain associated with it.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAIRYA A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5809. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
DHAIRYA A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453 15045