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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-19, 49-56 and 81 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following rejection finds basis in the most recently issued guidance published in the Federal Register on 7 January 2019 entitled “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, available at <https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/07/2018-28282/2019-revised-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-guidance>. The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance applies the subject matter eligibility test as described within recently revised MPEP § 2106, revision 08.2017, namely, the “Alice/Mayo test” or “Mayo test” as laid out by the Supreme Court as a framework for determining claimed subject matter eligibility. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). Note that the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance also supersedes all versions of the USPTO's “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas” (first issued in July 2015 and updated most recently in July 2018).
A. Claim 12 is analyzed according to SME flowchart. Claim 12 is directed to a network function service consumer which is network node. Analyzing claim 12 according to step 1, of SME, is a network function service consumer comprising at least one processors and at least one memory storing instructions executed by the at least one processor. The network function service consumer to send a request and a network function service producer to receive the request. The network function service consumer of claim 1 comprises a processor and for executing instructions and fits one of the statutory categories and qualifies as a machine.
Claim 49 is analyzed according to SME flowchart. Claim 49 is directed to a method of a network function service consumer to send request data and a network function service producer to receive the request data. The method including the step of a network function service consume sending request data and a network function service producer receiving the request data. Claim 49 performs steps and fits one of the statutory categories, claim 49 qualifies as a process.
Claim 81 is analyzed according to SME flowchart. Claim 81 is directed to The of claim 81 fits one of the statutory categories and claim 49 qualifies as a process. The method including the step of a network function service consume sending request data and a network function service producer receiving the request data. Claim 81 performs steps and fits one of the statutory categories, claim 49 qualifies as a process.
B. When considering step 2A, prong 1, claim 12 recites a consumer node sends to a producer node. Claim 12 recites “network function service consumer “ “to: send, to a network function service producer, a service request, wherein the service request comprises a first callback Uniform Resource Identifier, URI, having a first Application Programming Interface, API, prefix”. Claim 12 recites sending data by the consumer and receive the data by the producer which is an interaction between the consumer and the producer. The interactions between the nodes is similar to interactions between human beings. Thus, interactions such as send and receive between nodes fits a mental process grouping of an abstract idea. Additional limitations of claim 12 comprises what data described as callback uniform resource identifier (URI). The data arranged to include API prefix data. With respect to dependent claims 13-19, combinations of different data for the request and/or callback are recited. In the case of claim 13, the callback data implemented as a combination of a root portion and a path portion, the root portion combines api prefix data and authority data. In the case of claim 14, the send/receive data includes binding data which is a first parameter indicating a first value of a first api prefix. In the case of claim 15, the first parameter listing a first api prefix and first callback URI. In the case of claim 16, send/receive data includes second parameter with HTTP schema, header type, or second parameter lists one of first API prefix of first callback, root portion of first callback or part of first callback excludes root. In the case of claim 17, receive a callback request of second callback URI and the first API prefix for the second callback does not include the first API prefix of the first callback URI. In the case of claim 18, second callback URI includes one or more of second API prefix or second authority portion. In the case of claim 19, the service request is subscription and notification creation. The inclusion of different kinds of data and combinations of the different data to send/receive does not impact the functions of the a mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 13-19 are an abstract idea.
When considering step 2A, prong 1, claim 49 recites “A method comprising” “:sending, by a network function service consumer, to network function service producer, a service request, wherein the service request comprises a first callback Uniform Resource Identifier, URI, having a first Application Programming Interface, API, prefix.” The limitations of claim 49 correlate to the limitations of claim 12 above. Similar to claim 12 above, claim 49 is grouped with a mental process and is an abstract idea. With respect to dependent claims 50-56, combinations of different data structures within the request and/or callback are claimed. The limitations of claims 50-56 are similar to the limitations of claims 13-19 above. The analysis of the data and the combinations of data types is similar to the analysis of claims 13-19 above. The combination of different data structures of the URI schema does not impact the functions of the a mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 50-56 are an abstract idea.
When considering step 2A, prong 1, claim 81 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for causing “ “a network function service consumer to perform at least the following: sending, to a network function service producer, a service request, wherein the service request comprises a first callback Uniform Resource Identifier, URI, having a first Application Programming Interface, API, prefix.” The non-transitory computer readable medium of a network function service consumer including instructions to send/receive data which is a form of interacting. Forms of activity that include interacting such as send/receive actions are grouped as a mental process. A mental process is one of the groups of an abstract idea. Format of the data within he request the node sends or receives is a callback uniform resource identifier (URI) which is a well-known schema. The recitation of other data types implementing the sending and receiving does not impact the functions of the a mental process. The combination of different data structures of the URI schema does not impact the functions of the a mental process.
C. The additional features of claim 12 are considered in step 2A, prong 2. The additional limitations of claim 12 are considered for determination of whether the claims are integrated in a practical application. The first addition limitations are at least one processor and instructions stored in memory, which implement the network function service consumer on a computer. The at least one processor is used as a tool for implementing the functions claimed not to make an improvement to computer technology. The second additional limitation is callback uniform resource identifier (URI) schema which is not an improvement to computer technology. The combination of values of the URI schema is not an integration into a practical application. Thus, claims 12 fails to recite additional features to integrate into a practical application in a technological environment or field of use. Dependent claims 13-19 recite also recite indications of the values of the uniform resource identifier (URI) schema which are descriptive of portion of schema. Providing the descriptive label for the values of the uniform resource identifier (URI) schema is not integration into a practical application. These features fail to integrate claims 13-19 into a practical application.
The additional features of claim 49 are considered in step 2A, prong 2. The additional limitations of claim 49 are considered for determination of whether the claims are integrated in a practical application. The first addition limitation are at least one processor and instructions stored in memory, which implement the network function service consumer on a computer. The at least one processor is used as a tool for implementing the functions claimed not to make an improvement to computer technology. The second additional limitation is callback uniform resource identifier (URI) schema which is not an improvement to computer technology. The combination of values of the URI schema is not an integration into a practical application. Thus, claims 49 fails to recite additional features to integrate into a practical application in a technological environment or field of use. Dependent claims 50-56 recite indications of the values of the uniform resource identifier (URI) schema which are descriptive of portion of schema. Providing the descriptive labels for the values of the uniform resource identifier (URI) schema is not integration into a practical application. These additional limitations fail to integrate claims 50-56 into a practical application.
D. The additional limitations of claim 12 are considered in Step 2B. Claim 12 does not recite additional limitations the amount to more than the judicial exception. One additional limitation is the uniform resource identifier (URI) which is a well understood type of schema and/or data string. Another additional limitation is prepending callback to the URI schema. Labelling the URI callback does integrate the invention in a technological field or a particular machine. Another additional limitation is the value the API prefix. API prefix data is preprocessed data which does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 13-19 recite further portions of data and combinations of portions of data for the callback URI schema. Dependent claim 13, root portion and path portion, the root portion a combination of a first API prefix and a first authority data. Dependent claims 14-15 recites portions of data including binding information including a first parameter indicates a first value of first API prefix. Claim 16 indicates the request includes second parameter data including HTTP or header data and a second parameter lists optionally for a first callback URI a first API prefix, an API root portion or does not include an API root portion. The additional limitation of dependent claims 17 receiving at a network function service producer, receive a second callback URI including a first API prefix or the second callback does not include the first API prefix of the first callback URI. In the case of claim 18, second callback URI includes one or more of second API prefix or second authority portion. In the case of claim 19, the service request is subscription and notification creation indicating the type of data does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The additional limitations of claim 49 are considered in Step 2B. Claim 49 does not recite additional limitations the amount to more than the judicial exception. One additional limitation is the uniform resource identifier (URI) which is a well understood type of schema and/or data string. Another additional limitation is prepending callback to the URI schema. Labelling the URI callback does integrate the invention in a technological field or a particular machine. Another additional limitation is the value the API prefix. API prefix data is preprocessed data which does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 49 fails to recite additional features to integrate into a practical application in a technological environment or field of use. Dependent claims 50-56 recite indications of the values of the uniform resource identifier (URI) schema which are descriptive of portion of schema, similar to the analysis of claims 13-19 above. Providing the descriptive labels for the values of the uniform resource identifier (URI) schema are not significantly more than the abstract idea. These additional limitations fail to integrate claims 50-56 into significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12-18, 49-55 and 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallenstal, US 20220240172 A1 (hereafter referred to as Hallenstal).
Claim 12, Hallenstal teaches a network function service consumer (p. 1, “Embodiments herein relate to a network nodes and methods therein for handling ‘Network Function (NF) discovery and service requests in a communications network. More specifically the embodiments herein relate to handling service request from a NF service consumer, such as e.g. a User Equipment (UE), located in a visited network, towards a NF located in a home network of the NF service consumer.”) comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (p. 23, “a computer program comprising instructions, which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out any of the methods above, as performed by the NF service consumer.”), cause the network function service consumer at least to:
send, to a network function service producer, a service request (p. 37, “The embodiments described herein provide an improved method for handling NF request, such as discovery requests and service requests from a NF service consumer located in a vPLMN for a NF located in an hPLMN of the NF service consumer.”), wherein the service request comprises a first Uniform Resource Identifier, URI (p. 50, “In a similar fashion callback URIs may be constructed, wherein the path part of the URI of the actual or the encrypted FQDN for the NF service producer node 130 may be appended.”), having a first Application Programming Interface, API, prefix (p. 50, “After passing the first network node 110, such as the pSEPP, in which the FQDN of the NF service producer node 130 is encrypted and appended to the apiPrefix of the NF profile: TABLE-US-00002 NF profile: FQDN=sepp1.op1.org apiPrefix=”/5d2cc0b86cef8bb08f805c37c33ed860fe80a3f2d1d0f3b7” ...” ). Hallenstal does not specifically recite a callback URI. However, Hallenstal teaches a callback URI is similarly constructed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a callback URI from another embodiment from Hallenstal as an equivalent substitution. The motivation would have been to expand utility to other URI scheme and thereby provide access to service function producers after discovery.
Claim 49 is a method comprising steps similar to the functions of the network function service consumer in claim 12 above. Claim 49 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 81 is a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions (p. 23, “a computer program comprising instructions, which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out any of the methods above, as performed by the NF service consumer.”) for causing a network function service consumer to perform at least the operations of claim 12 above. Claim 81 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 13, Hallenstal teaches the network function service consumer of claim 12, wherein the first callback URI comprises an apiRoot part and a path part (p. 46, “The addresses of the service instances may be comprised in the NF profile, e.g. within an apiPrefix of a URI representing the service instance. The apiPrefix is an optional path string of the URI that may be used to uniquely identify the NF service instance.”), and wherein the apiRoot part comprises at least the first API prefix and a first authority part (p. 13, Table 6.2.6.2.4-1).
Claim 50 is a method comprising steps similar to the functions of the network function in claim 13 above. Claim 50 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 14, Hallenstal teaches the network function service consumer of claim 12, wherein the service request further comprises binding information (p. 122, “In the known solution, the pSEPP further stores a mapping table, in which the changed address forwarded to the cSEPP is mapped to the corresponding actual service address of the NF service producer. The mapping table has to be continuously updated for every requested service. The mapping table are long lived and thus needs to be stored redundantly. “) and wherein the binding information includes a first parameter that indicates a value of the first API prefix (p. 122, “According to the embodiments herein however, instead of the second network node 111, such as the cSEPP, generating the mapping table for labels vs. target addresses, such as FQDNs, the second network node 111 appends the target address, such as the FQDN, of the first network node 110 to the apiPrefix element in the NFService in the NFProfile of the NF service provider 130 and may use a generic label as address. So, if apiPrefix is “/$hexstring/xyz” for an instance of service x when sent from the first network node 110, then the apiPrefix when sent from the second network node 111 may be e.g. “/nf-servicex-1.sepp1.mnc1.mcc1.3gpp.org/$hexstring/xyz”.).
Claim 51 is a method comprising steps similar to the functions of the network function in claim 14 above. Claim 51 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 15, Hallenstal teaches the network function service consumer of claim 14, wherein the first parameter included in the binding information lists the first API prefix of the first callback URI (p. 131-132, “When the NF service consumer 120 has received the discovery response comprising the address of the one or more NF service producers 130, the NF service consumer 120 may provide a request for the service to the NF service producer 130 in order to setup a session, such as a service session, in the NF service producer 130. FIG. 5 discloses the signalling involved for the service request sent from the NF service consumer 120 to an instance of service x in the NF service producer 130. The instance chosen for performing the service may e.g. have the address as received in step 6 in FIG. 3. In this example the address is label.sepp10.mnc1.mcc2.3gpp.org and the apiPrefix=“/nf-servicex-1.sepp1.mnc1.mcc1.3gpp.org /$hexstring/xyz””).
Claim 52 is a method comprising steps similar to the functions of the network function in claim 15 above. Claim 52 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 16, Hallenstal teaches the network function service consumer of claim 13, wherein the service request a second parameter comprising an HTTP header (p. 93, “The first URI may be comprised in a location parameter in a HTTP message.”) or a new header, and wherein the second parameter lists at least one of the following:
the first API prefix of the first callback URI (p. 128, “The first network node 110 may create a first URI, wherein a first part of the URI comprises the address of the first network node 110 and a second part of the URI comprises the apiPrefix comprising the address of the NF service producer node 130.” “406. The first network node 110 sends the response representing the address of the NF service producer node 130 to the second network node 111.”), an apiRoot part of the first callback URI, or a part of the first callback URI that does not include the apiRoot part of the first callback URI.
Claim 53 is a method comprising steps similar to the functions of the network function in claim 16 above. Claim 53 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 17, Hallenstal teaches the network function service consumer of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the device, further cause the network function service consumer at least to:
receive, from the network function service producer, a callback request having a second callback URI (p. 50, “In a similar fashion callback URIs may be constructed, wherein the path part of the URI of the actual or the encrypted FQDN for the NF service producer node 130 may be appended.”), wherein a first API prefix of the second callback URI does not include the first API prefix of the first callback URI.
Claim 54 is a method comprising steps similar to the functions of the network function in claim 17 above. Claim 54 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 18, Hallenstal teaches the network function service consumer of claim 17, wherein the second callback URI comprises at least one of: a second API prefix; or a second authority part (p. 46, “The URI generic syntax consists of a hierarchical sequence of five components: URI=scheme:[//authority]path[?query][ #fragment] wherein the authority component divides into three subcomponents: authority=[userinfo@]host[:port].” For the different services, servicex, in the profile, see p. 127.)
Claim 55 is a method comprising steps similar to the functions of the network function in claim 18 above. Claim 55 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 19 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallenstal as applied to claim 17 and 53 above, and further in view of Lu et al., US 20230261953 A1 (hereafter referred to as Lu).
Claim 19, Hallenstal teaches the network function service consumer of claim 17, as cited above. Hallenstal does not specifically teach wherein the service request is a subscription creation request and the callback request is a notification request. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches the service request is a subscription creation request (p. 155, “At block 610-1, an NF register request is transmitted to an NRF. The NF register request contains a binding indication associated with the NF consumer for a default notification subscription.”) and the callback request is a notification request (p. 203-206; “The notification request contains the callback URI and may be e.g.: POST {callback URI associated with default subscription for LMF1} 3gpp-sbi-Routing-Binding: bl=“nfset”; nf-set-id=“LMF-Set1” 3gpp-sbi-discovery-notification-type: N1_MESSAGE 3gpp-sbi-discovery-n1-msg-class: LPP”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hallenstal by incorporating subscription and callback notification from Lu for the callback modification from Hallenstal to further support the consumer requesting service functions from producers that are discovered.
Claim 56 is a method comprising steps similar to the functions of the network function in claim 19 above. Claim 56 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu et al., US 20250240223 A1, teaches binding can also be used by the NF consumer to indicate suitable NF consumer instance(s) for notification target instance reselection and routing of subsequent notification requests associated with a specific notification subscription and for providing Binding Indication for service(s) that the NF consumer produces for the same data context and the NF service producer is subsequently likely to invoke.
He et al., US 20250063073 A1, teaches the first NRF may authorize the request before performing block 2004. For example, based on the profile of the expected NF/NF service (e.g., P-CSCF service) and the type of the NF service consumer (e.g., the network function), the first NRF determines whether the NF service consumer is allowed to discover the expected NF instance(s).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICE L WINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Patrice L Winder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights