CTNF 18/805,086 CTNF 85644 DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-37 AIA 3. The drawings were received on 8/14/2024 . These drawings are accepted . Specification 06-31 AIA 4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 5. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 6. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 7. The factual inquiries 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA 9. Claim s 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0217355 A1 to Srivastava et al. (hereinafter “Srivastava”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2025/0119475 A1 to Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”) . Regarding Claim 1 , Srivastava discloses a Network Function (NF) system in a network (Srivastava: Figure 6) , comprising: one or more processors (Srivastava: Figure 6, element 606) ; and a memory having stored thereon instructions that (Srivastava: Figure 6, element 608) , upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, at an alternate NF, a rerouted request originally directed to a target NF in a messaging session between NFs (Srivastava: [0010], [0058-0061] – corresponds to re-routing a request, via delegated discovery, to an alternate NF producer.). Although Srivastava discloses re-routing based on a failure or unsuccessful reception to continue a session, Srivastava does not expressly disclose, the rerouted request including an indication of a reason the rerouted request was rerouted; determine, at the alternate NF based on the reason, whether to take over the messaging session from the target NF; and process the rerouted request based on the determination of whether to take over the messaging session. However, these features cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Sun. Sun is similarly concerned with determining a network service (provider/producer) in order to provide a network service (Sun: [0003-0004]). Sun discloses, the rerouted request including an indication of a reason the rerouted request was rerouted (Sun: [0055-0056] – corresponds to indicating an identifier and a reason why the first and second network function fail to establish a connection.) ; determine, at the alternate NF based on the reason, whether to take over the messaging session from the target NF (Sun: [0313-0314] – corresponds to determining whether or not to provide service based on the reason.) ; and process the rerouted request based on the determination of whether to take over the messaging session (Sun: [0314] – “ For example, if the revocation reason is that a private key of the SMF is leaked, the SMF cannot be provided for the AMF; or if the revocation reason is network maintenance or the NE certificate is temporarily suspended, the SMF can be provided for the AMF. ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA) to modify the NF system of Srivastava in view of the NF system of Sun to provide reasons for a re-routing request for the reasons of increasing network efficiency and user experience (Sun: [0004]). Claim 11, directed to a method embodiment of claim 1, recites similar features as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim1. Please see above rejection of claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim s 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava and Sun, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0224589 A1 to Das et al. (hereinafter “Das”) . Regarding Claim 2 , the combination of Srivastava and Sun discloses the NF system of claim 1 , wherein Srivastava and Sun disclose transmitting/receiving rerouting requests, but does not explicitly disclose utilizing a Diameter protocol. However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Das. Das is similarly concerned with failure handling in network function system architectures (Das: [0003], [0005]). Das discloses using a Diameter protocol in the network function system architecture (Das: [0015] – the NFs use REST and Diameter protocols to communicate.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA) to modify the NF system of the combination in view of the NF system of Das to utilize known protocols for communication for the reason of identifying the service instances to be provided (Das: [0002]). Regarding Claim 3 , the combination of Srivastava, Sun, and Das discloses the NF system of claim 2, wherein the network includes a fifth generation (5G) cellular Network (Srivastava: Figure 1 with [0034]; Sun: Figure 1 with [0107-0108]; Das: [0021-0022]). Claims 12-13, dependent upon claim 11, recite similar features as claims 2-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 2-3. Please see above rejections of claims 2-3. Please see above rejections of claims 2-3 . 07-21-aia AIA 11. Claim s 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Srivastava and Sun, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0147549 A1 to Singh et al. (hereinafter “Singh”) . Regarding Claim 4 , the combination of Srivastava and Sun discloses the NF system of claim 1, wherein: the messaging session includes an Rx interface protocol session (Srivastava: [0005-0010] – corresponds to a binding session including service binding indications for receiving service requests.), but the combination does not expressly disclose the rerouted request includes an Rx message routed by a binding support function (BSF) to the alternate NF. However, this feature is not new or novel in the presence of Singh. Singh is similarly concerned with selecting NF instances to handle SBI requests (Singh: [0001]). Singh further discloses sending a request message via BSF (Singh: [0112]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA) to modify the NF system of the combination in view of the NF system of Singh to utilize BSF for communication for the reason of reducing unnecessary traffic when attempting re-routes (Singh: [0007]). Claim 14, dependent upon claim 11, recites similar features as claim 4 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 4. Please see above rejection of claim 4 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 12. Claim s 5-10 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 13. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03. 14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT). 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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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. BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV Primary Examiner Art Unit 2474 /BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 June 15, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/805,086 Page 2 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/805,086 Page 3 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/805,086 Page 4 Art Unit: 2474
Prosecution Insights