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 March 6, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 5, 13, 24, and 36 have been amended. Claims 2-4, 6-9, 14-19, 22, 23, 26-31, 34, 35, and 37-43 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 10-13, 20, 21, 24, 25, 32, 33, and 36 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 6, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated December 8, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, in page 11 of the Remarks, “However, Landais fails to disclose that the monitoring function determines whether a workload is out of service based on the heartbeat messages as recited in amended independent Claims 1, 13, 24 and 36. Rather, in Landais, the monitoring function prevents the sender of the heartbeat message from realizing that a connection has failed by sending a duplicate of an old heartbeat response to the device”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0065 of Landais discloses the failure of SMF is determined based on absence of heartbeat associated with the SMF as stated “In some example implementations, the change of status may take the form of a failure and/or restart of the SMF 110, which can be detected at the NRF by analyzing the heartbeat (and/or the change in and/or absence of a heartbeat) associated with the SMF 110”.
Applicant argues, in pages 11-12 of the Remarks, “Further, Landais does not disclose that the NF is a 3GPP 5G core NF, nor that the workload of the NF is deployed in a cloud node as recited in amended independent Claims 1, 13, 24 and 36”.
In response, paragraph 0058 of Landais discloses network functions are part of fifth-generation (5G) architecture and paragraph 0025 discloses 3GPP. As shown in Fig. 1 and explained in paragraph 0024, SMF and NRF are part of 5G core NF. Landais does not teach the workload being deployed on a cloud node. Secondary art Radunovic is applied to cure this. Paragraph 0029 of Radunovic discloses VNF application instances are implemented as virtual machine in the cloud.
Applicant argues, in page 12 of the Remarks, “Furthermore, Landais is silent about that the connection is long lived layer 4 connection over an SBI interface as recited in amended independent Claims 1, 13, 24 and 36.”.
In response, paragraph 0024 discloses 5G core uses service based architecture. Therefore, connection involving SMF uses service based interface. As paragraph 0065 discloses connect state monitoring via heartbeat, the connection is a long-lived connection. Landais does not teach layer 4 connection. . Secondary art Radunovic is applied to cure this. Paragraph 0060 of Radunovic discloses connection using SCTP.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, 24, 36, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
the phrase “the layer-4 connection”, recited in claim 1, should be amended as “the layer 4 protocol connection”.
the phrase “the layer-4 connection”, recited in claim 13, should be amended as “the layer 4 protocol connection”.
the phrase “the layer-4 connection”, recited in claim 24, should be amended as “the layer 4 protocol connection”.
the phrase “the layer-4 connection”, recited in claim 36, should be amended as “the layer 4 protocol connection”.
the phrase “Service Based Interface (SBI) interface”, recited in claim 1, should be amended as “Service Based Interface (SBI)”.
Claim 25 should be cancelled since it does not further limit the independent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10-12, and 36 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.
Claim 1 recites “a workload” in line 2, and “a workload” in line 4. It is not clear if they are same of different workload.
Dependent claims 5 and 10-12 inherit the same deficiency.
Claim 36 recites “a workload” in line 5, and “a workload” in line 7. It is not clear if they are same of different workload.
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 § 103
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10-13, 20, 21, 24, 25, 32, 33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landais (US PGPUB No. US 20210306211 A1), hereinafter, Landais, in view of Radunovic et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20200272525 A1), hereinafter, Radunovic.
Regarding claim 1:
Landais teaches:
A method performed by a monitoring function, comprising (Fig. 3 shows NRF (monitoring function)):
receiving a heartbeat message from a workload at a predetermined period, [[the workload being deployed on a cloud node]] (paragraph 0030 discloses receiving heartbeat from a SMF instance (workload));
determining that a workload of a network function is out of service (paragraph 0065 discloses determine failure a instance of SMF (network function) as stated “As shown in FIG. 3, NRF 300 is configured to detect a change in the status of the SMF. In some example implementations, the change of status may take the form of a failure and/or restart of the SMF 110, which can be detected at the NRF by analyzing the heartbeat (and/or the change in and/or absence of a heartbeat) associated with the SMF 110.”. Paragraph 0028 discloses PDUSession Service on SMF and failure of the NF service),
the network function comprising a network function of a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) fifth generation system, the workload being determined as out of service based on at least one of: the monitoring function cannot receive the heartbeat message from the workload within the predetermined period; and a predefined number of heartbeat messages are not received from the workload (paragraph 0058 discloses network functions are part of fifth-generation (5G) architecture. Paragraph 0025 discloses 3GPP. Paragraph 0065 discloses out of service is determined based on not receiving heartbeat signal as stated “In some example implementations, the change of status may take the form of a failure and/or restart of the SMF 110, which can be detected at the NRF by analyzing the heartbeat (and/or the change in and/or absence of a heartbeat) associated with the SMF 110.”. Paragraph 0086 discloses heartbeat interval. Therefore, the failure is detected based not receiving heartbeat with predetermined period); and
sending a message to a connection management function, the message requesting the connection management function to delete at least one connection record of at least one connection related to the workload from a connection tracking system (paragraph 0066 disclose sending a message to AMF/NF (connection management function) to delete the active status of the SMF and modified it to suspended. Also see paragraph 0054-0055 disclosing removing information of the failed service instance and updating NF profile. Paragraph 0076 discloses clean up action after receiving status message),
the at least one connection comprises [[a layer 4 protocol connection, the layer-4 connection]] comprising a long lived layer 4 connection using an Service Based Interface (SBI) interface (paragraph 0024 discloses 5G core uses service based architecture. Therefore, connection involving SMF uses service based interface. As paragraph 0065 discloses connection state monitoring via heartbeat, the connection is a long-lived connection).
Landais does not explicitly teach the workload being deployed on a cloud node; a layer 4 protocol connection.
Radunovic teaches the workload being deployed on a cloud node; a layer 4 protocol connection (paragraph 0029 discloses VNF application instances are implemented as virtual machine in the cloud. paragraph 0060 discloses connection with SCTP (layer 4 protocol)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Landais to incorporate the teaching of Radunovic about virtual machine in the cloud and layer 4 connection. One would be motivated to use cloud to virtualize networks service more efficiently and to use SCTP for storing connection state individually (see paragraphs 0002 and 00049 of Radunovic).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Landais in view of Radunovic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Landais further teaches wherein the network function of the 3GPP fifth generation system comprises at least one of: Session Management Function (SMF)[[,]];Access and mobility Function (AMF); Authentication Service Function (AUSF); Unified Data Management (UDM); Policy Control Function (PCF); Application Function (AF); Network Exposure Function (NEF); User plane Function (UPF); Network Repository Function (NRF); service communication proxy (SCP); network data analytics function (NWDAF); Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF); Network Slice-Specific Authentication and Authorization Function (NSSAAF); or Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) (Fig. 3 shows the network function is SMF).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Landais in view of Radunovic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Landais do not teach wherein a load balancer is responsible for forwarding initial traffic of a connection from a consumer of the network function to a selected workload of the network function, the connection tracking system is responsible for recording a path of the initial traffic to the selected workload, and subsequent traffic of the connection from the consumer of the network function is forwarded to the selected workload according to the path of the initial traffic.
Radunovic teaches wherein a load balancer is responsible for forwarding initial traffic of a connection from a consumer of the network function to a selected workload of the network function, the connection tracking system is responsible for recording a path of the initial traffic to the selected workload, and subsequent traffic of the connection from the consumer of the network function is forwarded to the selected workload according to the path of the initial traffic (paragraph 0036 discloses load balancer delivers all packets for a particular flow to the target VNF instance. Paragraph 0037 discloses storing metadata for each flow and corresponding VNF instance for forwarding subsequent packets. Paragraph 0038 discloses metadata is extracted from initial packet and stored for subsequent traffic forwarding ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Landais to incorporate the teaching of Radunovic about storing metadata for each flow and corresponding VNF instance for forwarding subsequent packets. One would be motivated to do that for efficient delivery of packets related to a particular user context (see paragraphs 0031 of Radunovic).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Landais in view of Radunovic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Landais does not teach wherein a connection record in the connection tracking system comprises at least one of source address, destination address, source port number, destination port number, layer-4 protocol information, or layer-3 protocol information.
Radunovic teaches wherein a connection record in the connection tracking system comprises at least one of source address, destination address, source port number, destination port number, layer-4 protocol information, or layer-3 protocol information (paragraph 0060 discloses SCTP packet with SA, DA, SP, DP ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Landais to incorporate the teaching of Radunovic about SCTP packet with SA, DA, SP, DP. One would be motivated to do that for storing connection state individually (see paragraph 0049 of Radunovic).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Landais in view of Radunovic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Landais does not teach wherein a connection record in the connection tracking system comprises a 5 tuple record or entry.
Radunovic teach wherein a connection record in the connection tracking system comprises a 5 tuple record or entry (Fig. 3 shows stored metadata of each flow. Paragraph 0060 discloses SCTP packet with SA, DA, SP, DP. Also see paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Landais to incorporate the teaching of Radunovic about SCTP packet with SA, DA, SP, DP. One would be motivated to do that for storing connection state individually (see paragraph 0049 of Radunovic).
Regarding claim 13:
Landais teaches:
A method performed by a connection management function, the method comprising (Fig. 3 shows AMF (connection management function)):
receiving a message from a monitoring function, the message requesting the connection management function to delete at least one connection record of at least one connection related to a workload of a network function from a connection tracking system (paragraph 0066 disclose receiving a message from NRF (connection monitoring function) to delete the active status of a instance (workload) of a SMF (network function) and modified it to suspended. Paragraph 0028 discloses PDUSession Service on SMF and failure of the NF service),
[[the workload being deployed on a cloud node]], the network function comprising a network function of a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) fifth generation system, the at least one connection comprising [[a layer 4 protocol connection]], the layer-4 connection comprising a long lived layer 4 connection using an Service Based Interface (SBI) interface (paragraph 0058 discloses network functions are part of fifth-generation (5G) architecture. Paragraph 0025 discloses 3GPP. Paragraph 0024 discloses 5G core uses service based architecture. Therefore, connection involving SMF uses service based interface. As paragraph 0065 discloses connection state monitoring via heartbeat, the connection is a long-lived connection); and
deleting the at least one connection record of the at least one connection related to the workload of the network function from the connection tracking system by sending a command to the connection tracking system to delete the at least one connection record of the at least one connection related to the workload of the network function, the command comprising information of the at least one connection record or the identity of the workload (paragraph 0076 discloses clean up action of the instances of the NF after receiving the status message as stated “Upon receiving the indication that the NF Status of NF(B) 504 is SUSPENDED, NF(A) 502 and/or any other relevant NFs may trigger appropriate restoration and/or clean-up actions to address the impact of the change in status of NF(B) 504.”. Also see paragraph 0054-0055 disclosing removing information of the failed service instance and updating NF profile. The clean-up action inherently include command with identification of the failed instance of NF ).
Landais does not explicitly teach the workload being deployed on a cloud node; a layer 4 protocol connection.
Radunovic teaches the workload being deployed on a cloud node; a layer 4 protocol connection (paragraph 0029 discloses VNF application instances are implemented as virtual machine in the cloud. paragraph 0060 discloses connection with SCTP (layer 4 protocol)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Landais to incorporate the teaching of Radunovic about virtual machine in the cloud and layer 4 connection. One would be motivated to use cloud to virtualize networks service more efficiently and to use SCTP for storing connection state individually (see paragraphs 0002 and 00049 of Radunovic).
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Landais in view of Radunovic teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as shown above.
Landais does not teach wherein the network function comprises two or more workloads.
Radunovic teaches wherein the network function comprises two or more workloads (Fig. 7B shows plurality of instance of SMF. Paragraph 0029 discloses each instance is virtual machines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Landais to incorporate the teaching of Radunovic about plurality of instance of SMF. One would be motivated to do that for reestablishing connection after failure of one instance (see paragraph 0049 of Radunovic).
Claim 21 recites limitations similar to claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 24:
Landais teaches:
A method performed by a workload of a network function, the method comprising: sending a heartbeat message to a monitoring function at a predetermined period, the network function comprising a network function of a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) fifth generation system, [[the workload being deployed on a cloud node]], a connection served by the workload comprising [[a layer 4 protocol connection]], the layer-4 connection comprising a long lived layer 4 connection using an Service Based Interface (SBI) interface, the heartbeat message being used for determining whether the workload of the network function is out of service (paragraph 0030 discloses an instance (workload) of SMF (network function) sends heartbeat to NRF (monitoring function). Paragraph 0086 discloses heartbeat interval. Fig. 3 shows NRF. Paragraph 0058 discloses network functions are part of fifth-generation (5G) architecture. Paragraph 0025 discloses 3GPP. Paragraph 0024 discloses 5G core uses service based architecture. Therefore, connection involving SMF uses service based interface. As paragraph 0065 discloses connection state monitoring via heartbeat, the connection is a long-lived connection. Paragraph 0065 discloses determine failure a instance of SMF based on the absence of heartbeat as stated “As shown in FIG. 3, NRF 300 is configured to detect a change in the status of the SMF. In some example implementations, the change of status may take the form of a failure and/or restart of the SMF 110, which can be detected at the NRF by analyzing the heartbeat (and/or the change in and/or absence of a heartbeat) associated with the SMF 110.”. Paragraph 0028 discloses PDUSession Service (workload) on SMF and failure of the NF service i.e. PDUSession Service of the SMF),
the workload being determined as out of service based on at least one of: the monitoring function cannot receive the heartbeat message from the workload within the predetermined period; and a predefined number of heartbeat messages are not received from the workload (paragraph 0065 discloses out of service is determined based on not receiving heartbeat signal as stated “In some example implementations, the change of status may take the form of a failure and/or restart of the SMF 110, which can be detected at the NRF by analyzing the heartbeat (and/or the change in and/or absence of a heartbeat) associated with the SMF 110.”. Paragraph 0086 discloses heartbeat interval. Therefore, the failure is detected based not receiving heartbeat with predetermined period).
Landais does not explicitly teach the workload being deployed on a cloud node; a layer 4 protocol connection.
Radunovic teaches the workload being deployed on a cloud node; a layer 4 protocol connection (paragraph 0029 discloses VNF application instances are implemented as virtual machine in the cloud. paragraph 0060 discloses connection with SCTP (layer 4 protocol)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Landais to incorporate the teaching of Radunovic about virtual machine in the cloud and layer 4 connection. One would be motivated to use cloud to virtualize networks service more efficiently and to use SCTP for storing connection state individually (see paragraphs 0002 and 00049 of Radunovic).
As to claim 25, the rejection of claim 24 is incorporated. Landais in view of Radunovic teaches all the limitations of claim 24 as shown above.
Landais further teaches wherein the workload is determined as out of service based on at least one of: the monitoring function cannot receive the heartbeat message from the workload within the predetermined period; or a predefined number of heartbeat messages are not received from the workload (paragprhe 0065 discloses failure is determined based on the absence of heartbeat signal. Paragraph 0086 discloses heartbeat interval. Therefore, the failure is detected based not receiving heartbeat with predetermined period).
Claim 32 recites limitations similar to claim 20. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 33 recites limitations similar to claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 36:
Claim 36 is directed towards a monitoring function performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
May 13, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights