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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BYKAMPADI et al. (WO 2021140051 A1, hereinafter Bykampadi)
Regarding Claim 1, Bykampadi teaches
A system (1300) for managing routing in a multi-tiered network repository function (NRF) architecture comprising a centralized NRF (104) associated with one or more local NRFs (102), said system (1300) comprising:
(Bykampadi [0020, line 16] Hierarchical NRF setups with regional and central/global NRFs can be realised either using intermediate redirecting or forwarding NRFs.)
one or more processors (1302); and
(Bykampadi [0011, line 18] executed by at least one processor.)
a memory (1304) operatively coupled to the one or more processors (1302)) wherein the memory (1304) comprises processor-executable instructions, which on execution, cause the one or more processors (1302) to:
(Bykampadi [0058] Device 300 may comprise memory 320. [0058, line 6] Memory 320 may comprise computer instructions that processor 310 is configured to execute. When computer instructions configured to cause processor 310 to perform certain actions are stored in memory 320.)
receive an NF service request associated with a serving public land mobile network (PLMN);
(Bykampadi [0027, line 10] when the expected NF service or NF is in the same PLMN as the requester NF, the NF and NF service discovery may be implemented via the NRF.)
determine whether the NF service request is processed by a local NRF of the one or more local NRFs (102);
(Bykampadi [0044] A further possible parameter is a NF set or NF service set parameter, when specific NF set or NF service set concept is defined for a group of local or redundant NRFs, based on the locality of the requester NF consumer/producer instance
and forward the NF service request to the centralized NRF (104) based on the local NRF (102) being unable to process the NF service request.
(Bykampadi [0038, line 17] target NF set ID or target NF service set ID, when a specific NF Set or NF Service Set concept is defined for a group of local or redundant regional, or PLMN level central or global NRFs based on the locality of the requester NF consumer/producer instance, or an associated SCP-c and SCP-p instance, for example to prioritize the local NRF(s) based on the NF Set or NF Service Set concepts.
Regarding Claim 11, Bykampadi teaches receiving, at a public land mobile network (PLMN) interface, the NF service request associated with a serving PLMN;
(Bykampadi [0027, line 10] when the expected NF
service or NF is in the same PLMN as the requester NF, the NF and NF service discovery may be implemented via the NRF.)
determining, by a determination unit (1312), based on one or more parameters whether the NF service request is processed by the local NRF (102); and
(Bykampadi [0044] A further possible parameter is a NF set or NF service set parameter, when specific NF set or NF service set concept is defined for a group of local or redundant NRFs, based on the locality of the requester NF consumer/producer instance.)
forwarding, through a centralized NRF interface (1306-1), the NF service request to a centralized NRF (104) based on the local NRF (102) being unable to process the NF service request.
(Bykampadi [0038, line 17] target NF set ID or target NF service set ID, when a specific NF Set or NF Service Set concept is defined for a group of local or redundant regional, or PLMN level central or global NRFs based on the locality of the requester NF consumer/producer instance, or an associated SCP-c and SCP-p instance, for example to prioritize the local NRF(s) based on the NF Set or NF Service Set concepts.)
Regarding Claim 12 and as applied to Claim 11, Bykampadi teaches processing, by one or more processors (1302), the NF service request at the local NRF (102) based on the one or more parameters.
(Bykampadi[0035, line 31] the request message may comprise at least one of the following parameters: a target network function type set to network repository function, a service name parameter set to network repository function authorisation, a preferred locality parameter set based on a locality of the apparatus.)
Regarding Claim 13 and as applied to Claim 11, Bykampadi teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least one of: a target PLMN, a single network slice selection assistance information (S- NSSAI), and a type of NF (NF Type).
(Bykampadi [0039, line 22] the following query parameters may also be included by the requestor NF consumer/producer or network slice instance, NSI, specific SCP when different hierarchical NRF setups are used based on S-NSSAI / NSI information: nsnssais.)
Regarding Claim 14, Bycampadi teaches receiving, at a local NRF interface (1206-3), the NF service request associated with a serving public land mobile network (PLMN) from a first local NRF (102-1);
(Bykampadi [0027, line 10] when the expected NF
service or NF is in the same PLMN as the requester NF, the NF and NF service discovery may be implemented via the NRF.)
determining, by a determination unit (1212), a route for the NF service request based on a routing table and PLMN information stored in a database (1216); and
(Bykampadi [0044] A further possible parameter is a NF set or NF service set parameter, when specific NF set or NF service set concept is defined for a group of local or redundant NRFs, based on the locality of the requester NF consumer/producer instance.)
forwarding, through the local NRF interface (1206-3), the NF service request to a second local NRF (102-2) based on the determined route.
(Bykampadi [0038, line 17] target NF set ID or target NF service set ID, when a specific NF Set or NF Service Set concept is defined for a group of local or redundant regional, or PLMN level central or global NRFs based on the locality of the requester NF consumer/producer instance, or an associated SCP-c and SCP-p instance, for example to prioritize the local NRF(s) based on the NF Set or NF Service Set concepts.)
Regarding Claim 17, Bykampadi teaches receive a network function (NF) service request associated with a first local network repository function (NRF) (102-1) in a public land mobile network (PLMN);
(Bykampadi [0027, line 10] when the expected NF
service or NF is in the same PLMN as the requester NF, the NF and NF service discovery may be implemented via the NRF.)
determine a route for the NF service request to a second local NRF (102-2) based on a routing table and PLMN information from a database (1216); and
(Bykampadi [0044] A further possible parameter is a NF set or NF service set parameter, when specific NF set or NF service set concept is defined for a group of local or redundant NRFs, based on the locality of the requester NF consumer/producer instance.)
forward the NF service request to the second local NRF (102-2) based on the determined route.
(Bycampadi [0038, line 17] target NF set ID or target NF service set ID, when a specific NF Set or NF Service Set concept is defined for a group of local or redundant regional, or PLMN level central or global NRFs based on the locality of the requester NF consumer/producer instance, or an associated SCP-c and SCP-p instance, for example to prioritize the local NRF(s) based on the NF Set or NF Service Set concepts.)
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 2-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BYKAMPADI et al. (WO 2021140051 A1, hereinafter Bykampadi) in view of MENDOZA et al. (WO 2020185696 A1, hereinafter Mendoza)
Regarding Claim 2, Bykampadi teaches all of Claim 1 but fails to teach
wherein the centralized NRF (104) serves as a gateway for servicing one or more NFs associated with a telecommunication network (100).
However, in a similar endeavor Mendoza teaches
wherein the centralized NRF (104) serves as a gateway for servicing one or more NFs associated with a telecommunication network (100).
(Mendoza [0026, line 23] some NFs, such as subscriber-profile querying, are more effectively performed by centralized (“global”) servers than by per- region servers.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Bykampadi and by incorporating Mendoza to have the centralized NRF serves as the gateway for servicing one or more NFs.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the system to have improved scalability and efficient management scheme.
Regarding Claim 3, Bykampadi teaches all of Claim 1 but fails to teach
wherein the memory (1304) comprises processor-executable instructions, which on execution, cause the one or more processors (1302) to forward the NF service request to the centralized NRF (104) based on the NF service request being in a suspended state.
However, in a similar endeavor, Mendoza teaches
wherein the memory (1304) comprises processor-executable instructions, which on execution, cause the one or more processors (1302) to forward the NF service request to the centralized NRF (104) based on the NF service request being in a suspended state.
(Mendoz[0040, line 34] Consumer NF 106 can send a query (#2) to a regional NRF 108. Query #2 can be, e.g., a 5G Nnrf_NFDiscovery_Request message.
[0054, line 25] If an NF becomes inaccessible to an NRF, that NRF can mark that NF’s registration as suspended, or can remove or revoke the registration. The registration can be returned to pre-outage status once heartbeat packets are once again successfully exchanged.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Bykampadi and by incorporating Mendoza to have the system decides if the NF request can be handled by the local NRF or to be sent to the centralized one.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the system to have efficient routing decision and escalate when needed.
Regarding Claim 4, Bykampadi teaches all of Claim 1 but fails to teach
wherein the centralized NRF (104) routes an NF service request associated with a first local NRF (102-1) to a second local NRF (102-2) based on one or more routing tables associated with the centralized NRF (104).
However, in a similar endeavor, Mendoza teaches
wherein the centralized NRF (104) routes an NF service request associated with a first local NRF (102-1) to a second local NRF (102-2) based on one or more routing tables associated with the centralized NRF (104).
(Mendoza [0115] At 910, the control unit can determine that the service class 908 meets the forwarding criterion 902. For example, the control unit can search a database table or other preloaded datastore of service classes to be forwarded, and determine that the service class 908 is included in the table.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Bykampadi and by incorporating Mendoza to have NRF use a routing table and PLMN information to decide where the request from NF should go.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the system to have better scalability without interruption.
Regarding Claim 5 and as applied to Claim 4, Bykampadi further teaches
wherein the first local NRF (102-1) and the second local NRF (102-2) are associated with the same PLMN.
(Bykampadi[0033] A method is herein described to handle dynamic NRF discovery when hierarchical NRF architectures are used for intra-domain (e)SBA, within a single PLMN, and inter-domain (e)SBA for 5GC roaming between visited and home PLMNs.)
Regarding Claim 6 and as applied to Claim 4, Bykampadi further teaches
wherein the first local NRF (102-1) is associated with a first PLMN and the second local NRF (102-2) is associated with a second PLMN.
(Bykampadi [0021, line 23] he system comprises two public land mobile networks, PLMNs, 110, 112, each equipped with a network function, NF, 120, 122.
[0022, line 33] NFs may comprise at least some of an access and mobility function, AMF, a session management function, SMF, a network slice selection function, NSSF, a network exposure function, NEF, a network repository function, NRF.)
Regarding Claim 7 and as applied to Claim 6, Bykampadi further teaches
wherein the second PLMN is associated with a roaming partner (RP) (110).
(Bykampadi [0033] A method is herein described to handle dynamic NRF discovery when hierarchical NRF architectures are used for intra-domain (e)SBA, within a single PLMN, and inter-domain (e)SBA for 5GC roaming between visited and home PLMNs.)
Regarding Claim 8 and as applied to Claim 6, Bykampadi further teaches
wherein the centralized NRF (104) routes the NF service request to the second local NRF (102-2) associated with the second PLMN through a security edge protection proxy (SEPP) (108).
(Bykamapdi [0029, line 23] The cNRF may send a discovery request to an NRF, referred herein as pNRF 142, in another PLMN 112, e.g. the home PLMN. The pNRF 142 in the other network 112 may respond with a discovery response which may be forwarded to the SCP via the cNRF 140 in the PLMN 110 of the cNF. Then the SCP 150 may trigger service requests for the pNF 122 via the cSEPP 130 and the pSEPP 132.)
Regarding Claim 9, Bykampadi teaches all of Claim 1 but fails to teach
wherein the centralized NRF (104) comprises at least one of: an independently deployed centralized NRF (104) or a combinational NRF (202).
However, in a similar endeavor, Mendoza teaches
wherein the centralized NRF (104)
comprises at least one of: an independently deployed centralized NRF (104) or a combinational NRF (202).
(Mendoza [0026, line 32] the NRF for a region forwards queries related to such centralized services to an NRF dedicated to those services. In some examples, the centralized services register with a dedicated NRF, which reports the registration to a centralized master NRF. The NRF for a region forwards such queries to a regional master NRF that synchronizes with the centralized master NRF. In some examples, roaming is treated as an additional region for purposes of NRFs.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Bykampadi and by incorporating Mendoza for the system to have one centralized NRF or a combination of NRFs.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the system to have better scalability and management scheme.
Regarding Claim 10 and as it applied to Claim 9, Bykampadi fails to specifically teach
wherein the combinational NRF (202) comprises the centralized NRF (104) deployed within at least the one or more local NRFs (102).
However, in a similar endeavor, Mendoza specifically teaches
wherein the combinational NRF (202) comprises the centralized NRF (104) deployed within at least the one or more local NRFs (102).
(Mendoza [0043, line 20] a system can include a first registry device, represented by global NRF 102, and a second registry device, represented by regional NRF 108.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Bykampadi and by incorporating Mendoza to have a centralized NRF to be within one or multiple local NRFs.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the system to have better scalability and management scheme.
Regarding Claim 15 and as it applied to Claim 14, Bykampadi fails to specifically teach
wherein the routing table comprises information related to at least one of:
a priority value,
a target PLMN,
a type of NF (NF Type),
a slice number,
an action,
and an NRF table.
However, in a similar endeavor, Mendoza specifically teaches
The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the routing table comprises information related to at least one of:
a priority value,
a target PLMN,
a type of NF (NF Type),
(Mendoza [0088, line 33] forwarding criterion 502 can be included or embodied in a hash table or database table permitting lookup by NFType 418 to determine whether NFType 418 is included in the set.)
a slice number,
an action,
and an NRF table.
(Note: Examiner is required to find at least one limitations of the claim in the reference. Examiner has elaborated one and that is considered to be sufficient.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Bykampadi and by incorporating Mendoza to have a well-maintained routing table to decide where the NF request should go.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the system to have the mechanism for choosing the destination NRF and to have efficient operation without interruption.
Regarding Claim 16 and as it applied to Claim 14, Bykampadi fails to specifically teach
wherein the second local NRF (102-2) is associated with at least one of:
the serving PLMN;
a second access technology independent network (106-2);
and a roaming partner (RP) (110).
However, in a similar endeavor, Mendoza specifically teaches
wherein the second local NRF (102-2) is associated with at least one of:
the serving PLMN;
a second access technology independent network (106-2);
and a roaming partner (RP) (110).
(Mendoza [0045, line 34] The vNRF (a regional NRF 108) can query an hNRF dedicated to roaming (e.g., a global NRF 102 or another regional NRF) using, e.g., the PLMN ID of SUPI, via, e.g., an NF Discovery service, to retrieve UPF information.)
(Note: Examiner is required to find at least one limitations of the claim in the reference. Examiner has elaborated one and that is considered to be sufficient.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Bykampadi and by incorporating Mendoza to have the system have a roaming partner so that request can be forwarded to a SEPP for roaming traffic.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the system to operate without interruption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANA HASSAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-8939. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/RANA H MAHMUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights