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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 6,13 and 20 are objected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 3/9/2026 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asim et al. (US 2025/0247417), hereinafter Asim in view of Burakovsky et al. (US 2021/0409375), hereinafter Burakovsky further in view of Mattia et al. (US 2019/0347154), hereinafter Mattia.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the proposed combination is improper because it would fundamentally change the principle of operation of Asim.
Applicant indicates Asim’s system mainly operates in the control plane and Burakovsky operates on an entirely different plane than Asim. Applicant concludes under MPEP section 2143.01, the modification is improper because it would change the principle of operation of Asim and renders Asim unsatisfactory for its intended purpose from HTTP/2 parameter validation to an entirely different PFCP-based session management paradigm. The examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the argument unpersuasive, the argument is mainly conclusory opinion without evidences. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the proposed combination does not disclose, teach, or suggest each and every claim element.
In particular, Applicant argues the combination of Asim-Burakovsky-Mattia fails to teach the following limitations
“one or more mitigations associated with a hypertext transfer protocol version 2 (HTTP/2) status code,” and “receive, from the server network function, the HTTP/2 status code, wherein the HTTP/2 status code is in response to a specific network request originated from the client device.”
Applicant argues “The Office Action relies on Burakovsky as allegedly disclosing “one or more mitigation actions associated with a hypertext transfer protocol version 2 (HTTP/2) status code.” And, cited paragraphs [0101] and [0103] of Burakovsky does not disclose, teach or suggest the limitation: “associated with a … HTTP/2 status code.” Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive, the cited paragraphs disclose a storage which stores policy, configuration information and signatures extracted from PFCP traffic for implanting security enforcement techniques. And, rules can apply signatures or other matching criteria, such as policy enforcement based on various extracted parameters from monitored HTTP/2 messages. In other words, Burakovsky disclose techniques for implementing security enforcement on parameters that are extracted from monitored HTTP/2 message. The parameter and information are interpreted as HTTP/2 code, because the system relies on the parameter and information of the HTTP/2 message to enforce security. Furthermore, Matia also discloses HTTP/2 status code (see paragraph [0085] of Matia).
Applicant argues “The Office Action relies on Asim as allegedly disclosing “receive, from the server network function, the HTTP/2 status code, wherein the HTTP/2 status code is in response to a specific network request originated from the client device.” Applicant refers to cited paragraphs [0016], [0020], [0026]-[0028], and argues in the cited portions, Asim does not disclose, teach, or suggest that “HTTP/2 status code is in response to a specific network request originated from the client device.” Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive, Asim discloses an SMF issues a request toward NRF and the NRF processes the received HTTP PUT request and after completing processing, or detecting invalid parameters, the NRF returns a response in HTTP 200; HTTP 4xx or 5xx status code. An SMF issues a request and an NRF returns a response in HTTP/2 status code, the SMF is construed as a client device because the response includes HTTP 4xx or 5xx status code. The HTTP 4xx status code indicates an error related to client-side issues which is the requestor (see paragraph [0053] of Asim). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, the combination of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia teaches each and every limitation of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asim et al. (US 2025/0247417), hereinafter Asim in view of Burakovsky et al. (US 2021/0409375), hereinafter Burakovsky further in view of Mattia et al. (US 2019/0347154), hereinafter Mattia.
As for claim 1, Asim teaches a system for managing network responses to error conditions in a multi-tenant environment (Fig. 1; paragraph [0014] describes a system; paragraph [0057]-[0059] describe a process for validating network messages between NFs via a gateway in a core network), comprising:
a processor, operably coupled with a memory, and configured to:
receive, from the server network function, the HTTP/2 status code, wherein the HTTP/2 status code is in response to a specific network request originated from the client device (paragraphs [0016] and [0020] describe communication protocol between a first network function and a second network function includes HTTP/2. A second consumer process issues an HTTP request to a first producer process. In response, the first producer process performs operations based on the request and generates an HTTP response code and body; paragraphs [0026]-[0028] describe an SMF issues a request toward NRF and the NRF processes the received HTTP PUT request and after completing processing, or detecting invalid parameters, the NRF returns a response including HTTP 200; HTTP 4xx or 5XX status code indicating a sender or NRF error);
determine a type of the HTTP/2 status code (paragraph [0085] describes a gateway generates an appropriate error code in response to a validation failure), wherein the type of the HTTP/2 status code indicates whether the HTTP/2 status code is related to a client-side error, a server-side error, or a network-side error (paragraph [0085] describes if the invalid parameter is due to client-side issues, the gateway returns a 4XX series error code. For server-side issues, a 5XX series error code is returned);
in response to determining the type of the HTTP/2 status code, execute the one or more mitigation actions associated with the HTTP/2 status code (paragraphs [0034]-[0037] and [0044]-[0047] describe operations involves different technique to prevent respective type of attacks, e.g. XSS, SQL injection, DOS, MiM attacks; paragraph [0085] describes alongside error codes, the gateway also provides a detailed error message or explanation within response body which guides the requestor towards remediation or correction of the request), wherein the one or more mitigation actions are customized based at least in part upon at least one of the tenant ID or the type of the HTTP/2 status code (paragraph [0050] describes each NF is individually modified at the source code level to incorporate the parameter validation logic);
determine a result of the one or more mitigation actions (paragraph [0088] describes upon determining that the network request is capable of remediation, malicious character strings or other identified vulnerabilities are removed and the request is transmitted. Note: the issue of the request after remediations indicate that result of the remediation is determined).
Asim fails to teach
a memory configured to store one or more mitigation actions associated with a hypertext transfer protocol version 2 (HTTP/2) status code; and
a processor, operably coupled with the memory, and configured to:
transmit a policy request message to a server network function, wherein:
the policy request message comprises at least a context value tenant identifier (ID);
the policy request message indicates to provide an access management policy for a client device associated with the tenant ID;
wherein a result is represented by a network communication in response to executed one or more mitigation actions; and
report the result.
Burakovsky discloses
a memory configured to store one or more mitigation actions associated with a hypertext transfer protocol version 2 (HTTP/2) status code (paragraph [0100] describes a network device includes a storage which can be used to store policy. The storage also stores other configuration information as well as signatures, for example information extracted from PFCP traffic for implementing security policy enforcement techniques; paragraph [0103] describes rules can apply signatures or other matching criteria, such as security policy enforcement for subscriber/IP flows on service provider networks based on various extracted parameters/information from monitored HTTP/2 messages); and
a processor, operably coupled with the memory (paragraph [0100] describes a CPU and RAM), and configured to:
transmit a policy request message to a server network function (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0048]-[0052] and [0081] describe wireless network comprises a sensor acting on behalf of a firewall that can implement security policies, the network facilitates data communications for subscribers over the Internet to access various applications. Each N4 interface of the plurality of N4 interfaces provides an interface between UPFs and SMF via PFCP over UDP. The security platform automatically builds sessions based on a 5-tuple+Node ID), wherein:
the policy request message comprises at least a tenant identifier (ID) (paragraph [0109] describes parameters belong to the message includes a node ID); and
the policy request message indicates to provide an access management policy for a client device associated with the tenant ID (paragraphs [0084] describes a security platform is configured with a security policy to perform a sequence number check. The security platform checks the sequence number in PFCP request and response messages).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Burakovsky for transmitting a policy request. The teachings of Burakovsky, when implemented in the Asim system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to identify an issue and provide a solution to the issue. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of [new reference] in the [prior reference] system in order to create a communication session between clients and providers and to allow PFCP session related messages from a control plane or a user plane function having context matching PCFP request messages.
The combined system of Asim and Burakovsky fails teach
wherein a result is represented by a network communication in response to executed one or more mitigation actions; and
report the result.
Mattia discloses
wherein a result is represented by a network communication in response to executed one or more mitigation actions (paragraphs [0043]-[0044] describe a feedback that informs a status module whether or not troubleshooting instructions were able to successfully repair a system); and
report the result (paragraphs [0044]-[0045] describe a feedback code is generated as a result of executing the troubleshooting instructions and once the feedback code is generated, the feedback code is displayed on a display).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Mattia for providing feedback related to results of a troubleshoot. The teachings of Mattia, when implemented in the Asim and Burakovsky system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to provide status of troubleshooting operations. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Mattia in the Asim and Burakovsky system in order to perform appropriate actions regarding status of troubleshooting a report error, a system can either close a request for troubleshooting a report error or escalate the troubleshooting task.
As for claim 2, Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia teaches wherein the HTTP/2 status code is an HTTP/2 status error code (Asim: paragraph [0031] describes HTTP 4XX or 5XX status code).
As for claim 8, Asim teaches a method for managing network responses to error conditions in a multi-tenant environment (paragraph [0057]-[0059] describe a process for validating network messages between NFs via a gateway in a core network), comprising:
receiving, from the server network function, a hypertext transfer protocol version 2 (HTTP/2) status code (paragraphs [0016] and [0020] describe communication protocol between a first network function and a second network function includes HTTP/2. A second consumer process issues an HTTP request to a first producer process. In response, the first producer process performs operations based on the request and generates an HTTP response code and body; paragraphs [0026]-[0028] describe an SMF issues a request toward NRF and the NRF processes the received HTTP PUT request and after completing processing, or detecting invalid parameters, the NRF returns a response including HTTP 200; HTTP 4xx or 5XX status code indicating a sender or NRF error), wherein the HTTP/2 status code is in response to a specific network request originated from the client device;
determining a type of the HTTP/2 status code (paragraph [0085] describes a gateway generates an appropriate error code in response to a validation failure), wherein the type of the HTTP/2 status code indicates whether the HTTP/2 status code is related to a client-side error, a server-side error, or a network-side error (paragraph [0085] describes if the invalid parameter is due to client-side issues, the gateway returns a 4XX series error code. For server-side issues, a 5XX series error code is returned);
in response to determining the type of the HTTP/2 status code, executing one or more mitigation actions associated with the HTTP/2 status error code (paragraphs [0034]-[0037] and [0044]-[0047] describe operations involves different technique to prevent respective type of attacks, e.g. XSS, SQL injection, DOS, MiM attacks; paragraph [0085] describes alongside error codes, the gateway also provides a detailed error message or explanation within response body which guides the requestor towards remediation or correction of the request), wherein the one or more mitigation actions are customized based at least in part upon at least one of the tenant ID or the type of the HTTP/2 status code (paragraph [0050] describes each NF is individually modified at the source code level to incorporate the parameter validation logic), wherein the one or more mitigation actions are customized based at least in part upon at least one of the tenant ID, or the type of the HTTP/2 status error code (paragraph [0050] describes each NF is individually modified at the source code level to incorporate the parameter validation logic);
determining a result of the one or more mitigation actions (paragraph [0088] describes upon determining that the network request is capable of remediation, malicious character strings or other identified vulnerabilities are removed and the request is transmitted. Note: the issue of the request after remediations indicate that result of the remediation is determined).
Asim fails to teach
transmitting a policy request message to a server network function, wherein: the policy request message comprises at least a tenant identifier (ID); and the policy request message indicates to provide an access management policy for a client device associated with the tenant ID;
wherein the result is represented by a network communication in response to the executed one or more mitigation actions; and
reporting the result.
Burakovsky discloses
transmitting a policy request message to a server network function, wherein: the policy request message comprises at least a tenant identifier (ID) (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0048]-[0052] and [0081] describe wireless network comprises a sensor acting on behalf of a firewall that can implement security policies, the network facilitates data communications for subscribers over the Internet to access various applications. Each N4 interface of the plurality of N4 interfaces provides an interface between UPFs and SMF via PFCP over UDP. The security platform automatically builds sessions based on a 5-tuple+Node ID), wherein:
the policy request message comprises at least a tenant identifier (ID) (paragraph [0109] describes parameters belong to the message includes a node ID); and
the policy request message indicates to provide an access management policy for a client device associated with the tenant ID (paragraphs [0084] describes a security platform is configured with a security policy to perform a sequence number check. The security platform checks the sequence number in PFCP request and response messages).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Burakovsky for transmitting a policy request. The teachings of Burakovsky, when implemented in the Asim system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to identify an issue and provide a solution to the issue. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of [new reference] in the [prior reference] system in order to create a communication session between clients and providers and to allow PFCP session related messages from a control plane or a user plane function having context matching PCFP request messages.
The combined system of Asim and Burakovsky fails teach
wherein a result is represented by a network communication in response to executed one or more mitigation actions; and
reporting the result.
Mattia discloses
wherein a result is represented by a network communication in response to executed one or more mitigation actions (paragraphs [0043]-[0044] describe a feedback that informs a status module whether or not troubleshooting instructions were able to successfully repair a system); and
reporting the result (paragraphs [0044]-[0045] describe a feedback code is generated as a result of executing the troubleshooting instructions and once the feedback code is generated, the feedback code is displayed on a display).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Mattia for providing feedback related to results of a troubleshoot. The teachings of Mattia, when implemented in the Asim and Burakovsky system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to provide status of troubleshooting operations. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Mattia in the Asim and Burakovsky system in order to perform appropriate actions regarding status of troubleshooting a report error, a system can either close a request for troubleshooting a report error or escalate the troubleshooting task.
As for claim 15, the claim lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors (Asim: paragraphs [0090]-[0093] describes a processor that executes instructions stored at a memory to perform functions), causes the one or more processors to perform functions to carry out the steps of rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asim (US 2025/0247417) and Burakovsky (US 2021/0409375) in view of Mattia (US 2019/0347154) further in view of Garikipati et al. (US 2025/0097114), hereinafter Garikipati.
As for claim 3, Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia fails to teach wherein the one or more mitigation actions comprise redirecting the policy request message to a second server network function.
Garikipati discloses
wherein the one or more mitigation actions comprise redirecting the policy request message to a second server network function (paragraphs [0151]-[0152] and [0154]-[0156] describe a method comprises an NEF is informed that no suitable PCF is assigned for a UE and the UE is currently not registered, the NEF waiting for a configured time period after sending the first policy to a BSF before sending second policy discovery request to a PCF).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Garikipati for re-attempting a discover request. The teachings of Garikipati, when implemented in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain policy information. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Garikipati in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system in order to select an appropriate PCF that can provides a policy that matches with a UE.
As for claim 4, the combined system of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia fails to teach wherein the one or more mitigation actions comprise waiting at least a threshold time period before re-transmitting the policy request message to the server network function.
Garikipati discloses
wherein the one or more mitigation actions comprise waiting at least a threshold time period before re-transmitting the policy request message to the server network function (paragraphs [0151]-[0152] and [0154]-[0156] describe a method comprises an NEF is informed that no suitable PCF is assigned for a UE and the UE is currently not registered, the NEF waiting for a configured time period after sending the first policy to a BSF before sending second policy discovery request to a PCF).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Garikipati for re-attempting a discover request. The teachings of Garikipati, when implemented in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain policy information. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Garikipati in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system in order to select an appropriate PCF that can provides a policy that matches with a UE.
As for claim 10, Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia fails to teach wherein the one or more mitigation actions comprise redirecting the policy request message to a second server network function.
Garikipati discloses
wherein the one or more mitigation actions comprise redirecting the policy request message to a second server network function (paragraphs [0151]-[0152] and [0154]-[0156] describe a method comprises an NEF is informed that no suitable PCF is assigned for a UE and the UE is currently not registered, the NEF waiting for a configured time period after sending the first policy to a BSF before sending second policy discovery request to a PCF).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Garikipati for re-attempting a discover request. The teachings of Garikipati, when implemented in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain policy information. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Garikipati in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system in order to select an appropriate PCF that can provides a policy that matches with a UE.
As for claim 11, the combined system of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia fails to teach wherein the one or more mitigation actions comprise waiting at least a threshold time period before re-transmitting the policy request message to the server network function.
Garikipati discloses
wherein the one or more mitigation actions comprise waiting at least a threshold time period before re-transmitting the policy request message to the server network function (paragraphs [0151]-[0152] and [0154]-[0156] describe a method comprises an NEF is informed that no suitable PCF is assigned for a UE and the UE is currently not registered, the NEF waiting for a configured time period after sending the first policy to a BSF before sending second policy discovery request to a PCF).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Garikipati for re-attempting a discover request. The teachings of Garikipati, when implemented in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain policy information. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Garikipati in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system in order to select an appropriate PCF that can provides a policy that matches with a UE.
As for claims 17 and 18, the claims list all the same elements of claims 10 and 11, respectively but in a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors (Asim: paragraphs [0090]-[0093] describes a processor that executes instructions stored at a memory to perform functions), causes the one or more processors to perform functions to carry out the steps of rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 10 and 11 apply equally as well to claims 17 and 18, respectively.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asim (US 2025/0247417) and Burakovsky (US 2021/0409375) in view of Mattia (US 2019/0347154) further in view of Boucadair et al. (US 2022/0210185), hereinafter Boucadair.
As for claim 5, the combined system of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia fails to teach wherein: the policy request message is allocated with a first amount of network resources;
the one or more mitigation actions comprise allocating a second amount of network resources to the policy request message; and
the second amount of network resources is more than the first amount of network resources.
Boucadair discloses
wherein:
the policy request message is allocated with a first amount of network resources (paragraphs [0069]-[0070] describe access to the resources involved in implementing security policies can be compromised when an attack is in progress and in particular when the attack affects some or all of these resources and it is difficult or even impossible to access these resources);
the one or more mitigation actions comprise allocating a second amount of network resources to the policy request message (paragraphs [0069]-[0070] describe access to resources involved in implementing security policies can be compromised when an attack is in progress and when an attack is in progress and in particular when the attack affects some or all of these resources and it is difficult or even impossible to access these resources. A solution to the problem includes enabling an expanded capacity of network resources); and
the second amount of network resources is more than the first amount of network resources (paragraph [0060] describes the solution includes enabling an expanded capacity of network resources).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Boucadair for increasing network resources involved in implementing security policies. The teachings of Boucadair, when implemented in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent attacks which can be multifaceted. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Boucadair in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system in order to ensure continuity of services offered by the protected network (Boucadair: paragraph [0036]).
As for claim 12, the combined system of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia fails to teach wherein: the policy request message is allocated with a first amount of network resources;
the one or more mitigation actions comprise allocating a second amount of network resources to the policy request message; and
the second amount of network resources is more than the first amount of network resources.
Boucadair discloses
wherein:
the policy request message is allocated with a first amount of network resources (paragraphs [0069]-[0070] describe access to the resources involved in implementing security policies can be compromised when an attack is in progress and in particular when the attack affects some or all of these resources and it is difficult or even impossible to access these resources);
the one or more mitigation actions comprise allocating a second amount of network resources to the policy request message (paragraphs [0069]-[0070] describe access to resources involved in implementing security policies can be compromised when an attack is in progress and when an attack is in progress and in particular when the attack affects some or all of these resources and it is difficult or even impossible to access these resources. A solution to the problem includes enabling an expanded capacity of network resources); and
the second amount of network resources is more than the first amount of network resources (paragraph [0060] describes the solution includes enabling an expanded capacity of network resources).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Boucadair for increasing network resources involved in implementing security policies. The teachings of Boucadair, when implemented in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent attacks which can be multifaceted. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Boucadair in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system in order to ensure continuity of services offered by the protected network (Boucadair: paragraph [0036]).
As for claim 19, the claim lists all the same elements of claim 5, but in a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors (Asim: paragraphs [0090]-[0093] describes a processor that executes instructions stored at a memory to perform functions), causes the one or more processors to perform functions to carry out the steps of rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Claims 7, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asim (US 2025/0247417) and Burakovsky (US 2021/0409375) in view of Mattia (US 2019/0347154) further in view of Tu et al. (US 2023/0269627), hereinafter Tu.
As for claim 7, the combined system of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia teaches wherein mitigation actions are service requirements (Asim: paragraphs [0041]-[0044] describe the steps of validating the parameters of a network request and providing mitigation operations).
The combined system of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia fails to teach wherein the one or more mitigation actions are further customized based at least in part upon a priority level associated with a network slice ID associated with the client device.
Tu discloses
wherein the one or more service requirements are further customized based at least in part upon a priority level associated with a network slice ID associated with the client device (paragraphs [0054]-[0056] and [0059]-[0061] and [0076]-[0077] describe network slices are adapted to different feature requirements of various types of services. A UE registers with a network including an S-NSSAI which corresponds to a normal service priority. The UE later subscribes to a high-priority service with a corresponding changed S-NSSAI).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Tu for provisioning a network slice with high priority to a client. The teachings of Tu, when implemented in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent the operations on the dedicated network slice from being delayed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Tu in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system in order to acquire better service experience.
As for claim 9, the combined system of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia fails to teach wherein the tenant ID is mapped to a network slice ID associated with the client device.
Tu discloses
wherein the tenant ID is mapped to a network slice ID associated with the client device (paragraph [0074] describes a PCF determines information of the UE according to the identifier of the UE, subsequently, the PCF modifies the first S-NSSAI corresponds to the UE into a changed S-NSSAI corresponding to the service priority change information).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Tu for provisioning a network slice with high priority to a client. The teachings of Tu, when implemented in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent the operations on the dedicated network slice from being delayed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Tu in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system in order to acquire better service experience.
As for claim 14, the combined system of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia teaches wherein mitigation actions are service requirements (Asim: paragraphs [0041]-[0044] describe the steps of validating the parameters of a network request and providing mitigation operations).
The combined system of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia fails to teach wherein the one or more mitigation actions are further customized based at least in part upon a priority level associated with a network slice ID associated with the client device.
Tu discloses
wherein the one or more service requirements are further customized based at least in part upon a priority level associated with a network slice ID associated with the client device (paragraphs [0054]-[0056] and [0059]-[0061] and [0076]-[0077] describe network slices are adapted to different feature requirements of various types of services. A UE registers with a network including an S-NSSAI which corresponds to a normal service priority. The UE later subscribes to a high-priority service with a corresponding changed S-NSSAI).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Tu for provisioning a network slice with high priority to a client. The teachings of Tu, when implemented in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent the operations on the dedicated network slice from being delayed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Tu in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system in order to acquire better service experience.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asim (US 2025/0247417) and Burakovsky (US 2021/0409375) in view of Mattia (US 2019/0347154) further in view of Griot et al. (US 2018/0270840), hereinafter Griot.
As for claim 16, the combined system of Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia fails to teach wherein transmitting the policy request message is in response to receiving a non-access stratum (NAS) protocol request message from the client device, wherein the NAS protocol request message comprises the tenant ID associated with the client device.
Griot discloses
wherein transmitting the policy request message is in response to receiving a non-access stratum (NAS) protocol request message from the client device, wherein the NAS protocol request message comprises the tenant ID associated with the client device (paragraphs [0102] and [0127] describe a UE sends a NAS transport message for policy information request and the policy information request message includes a UE identifier).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Griot for sending a policy information request message. The teachings of Griot, when implemented in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to enable a UE to communicate with functions of a core network. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Griot in the Asim, Burakovsky and Mattia system in order to includes a routing indicator and a header that indicates the type of payload includes in the message, and an AMF may use this information to route the message appropriately. Accordingly, the UE is able to transmit and receive information to and from functions of a core network without having to maintain an active data session (Griot: paragraph [0102] .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 13 and 20 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “The system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more mitigation actions comprise adjusting a security protocol associated with the policy request message based at least in part upon a type of the HTTP/2 status code, wherein adjusting the security protocol comprises updating an encryption protocol associated with the policy request message.”
Claims 13 and 20 recite similar limitations.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach the limitations recited in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mouroulis et al. (US 2023/0359528) teach error handling of responses
Krishnan et al. (US 2022/0094711) data plane with connection validation circuits
Aaron et al. (US 2012/0110128) teach methods to route policy requests.
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 L. T N. whose telephone number is (571)272-1013. The examiner can normally be reached M & Th 5:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/L.T.N/ Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights