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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claims 1 and 11, recitation of an elevated plane function (EPF) and a modified network resource function (mNRF) renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what technology, protocol, or standard these terms belong to, as they do not appear to be standard terms used in mobile networking such as being 5G network components or elements of a 3GPP core system architecture. Neither the specification nor the claims define these “functions” in a way that would allow to establish meets and bounds of these terms/functions rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
As to claims 2-4 and 12-14, it is unclear what a data extraction function (DEF) is and what is does, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite for the same reasons as discussed per claims 1 and 11 above.
As to claim 3, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the EDF”.
As to claims 5, 9, 15, and 19, it is unclear what a virtual mesh function (VMF) is and what is does, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite for the same reasons as discussed per claims 1 and 11 above.
It is also unclear how pre-registration request is different from the registration request, if it is.
As to claims 6 and 16, it is unclear what a virtual application function (VAF) is and what is does, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite for the same reasons as discussed per claims 1 and 11 above.
As to claims 7, 10, 17, and 20, it is unclear what a modified access and mobility management function (mAMF) is and what is does, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite for the same reasons as discussed per claims 1 and 11 above.
As to claims 8 and 18, it is unclear what a data extraction function (DEF) and a modified network exposure function (mNEF) are and what they do, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite for the same reasons as discussed per claims 1 and 11 above.
As to claims 10 and 20, it is unclear what a virtual avatar function (VAF) is and what is does, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite for the same reasons as discussed per claims 1 and 11 above.
As to claims 12 and 14, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the DEF”.
As to claim 13, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the EDF”.
As to claim 16, the subject matter of this claim appears to be completely unrelated to the subject matter of independent claim 11 from which it depends, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In particular, it is unclear what relationship, if any, there is between receiving a parameter request for a virtual object, as in claim 16, and registration of an external entity to receive a service, as in claim 11.
As to claim 17, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the mAMF”.
As to claim 18, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the DEF”. It is also unclear what “AF” is because this abbreviation is undefined.
As to claim 20, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the UE”, “the mAMF”, and “the VAF”.
As to claim 20, the subject matter of this claim appears to be completely unrelated to the subject matter of independent claim 11 from which it depends, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In particular, it is unclear what relationship, if any, there is between transmitting a parameter request for a virtual object, as in claim 20, and registration of an external entity to receive a service, as in claim 11.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 11, use of the word “system” does not inherently mean that the claim is directed to a machine. Only if at least one of the clamed elements of the system is a physical part of a device can the system as claimed constitute part of a device or a combination of devices to be a machine within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101.
In the instant case, the claimed system comprises a service based architecture (SBA) which is a conceptual term that does not imply hardware comprising an elevated plane function (EPF). The elevated plane function is a logical element, by definition of a “function”, and doesn’t inherently imply hardware. There is nothing in the specification that defines EPF as a hardware element. Therefore, the claimed system is broad enough to be implemented completely in software alone, which renders claim 11 non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims introduce additional “functions” that are not hardware elements under the BRI of a “function” and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (US 2023/0319147 A1).
As to claim 1, Hu teaches a method for providing a service [method for an application to access a network] (abstract), the method comprising:
receiving a service request from an external entity in a service based architecture (SBA) [terminal device initiates a session establishment procedure to a UPF that provides a service] (par. [0088], [0221], Figs. 5 and 13B);
requesting, by an elevated plane function (EPF) of the SBA, an in-band registration or out-of-band registration for the external entity to a modified network resource function (mNRF) directly or indirectly [UPF registers with NRF whether the UPF supports establishment of a PDU session for an APP instance] (par. [0172]-[0173]) It is noted that since in-band registration and out-of-band registration are the only two options for communication, Hu inherently teaches that registration is performed either one of the ways; and
based on the in-band registration or the out-of-band registration, providing at least a part of service function of the SBA to the external entity (par. [0088], [0125]).
As to claim 4, Hu teaches that the EPF is configured to transmit a request for the in-band registration or a request for the out-of-band registration to the mNRF through a data extraction function (DEF) [SMF] (par. [0182]).
As to claim 5, Hu teaches transmitting, by the EPF, an in-band pre-registration request or an out-of-band pre-registration request to the mNRF through a virtual mesh function (VMF) (par. [0172]-[0173]).
As to claim 6, Hu teaches requesting, by the EPF, information about the external entity to a virtual application function (VAF) through a modified network exposure function (mNEF) [contacting SMF] (par. [0182]).
As to claim 7, Hu teaches requesting, by the VAF, the information about the external entity through a modified access and mobility management function (mAMF) (par. [0104]).
As to claim 8, Hu teaches that the EPF is configured to transmit information about the external entity to a data extraction function (DEF) or application function (AF) through a modified network exposure function (mNEF) (par. [0170]-[0171]).
As to claim 10, Hu teaches requesting, by the EPF, information about the external entity to a modified access and mobility management function (mAMF) (par. [0104]); and transmitting, by the EPF, an information request about the external entity to the mAMF through a virtual avatar function (VAF) (par. [0104]).
As to claim 11, Hu teaches a system for providing a service, the system comprising a service based architecture (SBA) [method for an application to access a network] (abstract) (Fig. 5, par. [0088]) configured to perform the functionality as discussed per claim 1 above, wherein the SBA comprises an elevated plane function (EPF) configured to perform the functionality as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claims 14-15 and 19, Hu teaches all the elements as discussed per corresponding method claims 4-5 and 9 above.
As to claim 18, Hu teaches that the EPF further comprises a modified network exposure function (mNEF) configured to transmit parameters for a user equipment (UE) and a virtual object to the DEF or AF (par. [0104]).
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 2-3, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Bykampadi et al. (US 2019/0253894 A1).
As to claims 2 and 12, Hu teaches requesting, by the EPF, call to a data extraction function (DEF) directly or indirectly [Session Management Function (SMF)] (par. [0178]-[0180]).
Hu fails to expressly teach an out-of-band communication as part of the registration message exchange.
Bykampadi is directed to mobile network communication (abstract). In particular, Bykampadi teaches registering client device using out-of-band communication (par. [0044], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Hu by performing out-of-band communication in order to perform registration in a way that is known alternative to in-band communication.
As to claims 3 and 13, Hu in view of Bykampadi teaches that the EPF is configured to transmit the out-of-band call to the EDF through a modified network exposure function (mNEF) (par. [0178]-[0180] in Hu).
As to claim 9, Hu teaches directly transmitting, by the EPF, an out-of-band pre-registration request to the mNRF; and indirectly transmitting, by the EPF, an in-band pre-registration request to the mNRF through a virtual mesh function (VMF) (par. [0172]-[0173]).
Hu fails to expressly teach an out-of-band communication as part of the registration message exchange.
Bykampadi is directed to mobile network communication (abstract). In particular, Bykampadi teaches registering client device using out-of-band communication (par. [0044], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Hu by performing out-of-band communication in order to perform registration in a way that is known alternative to in-band communication.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Zhang (US 2023/0422079 A1).
As to claim 16, Hu teaches all the elements except a modified network exposure function (mNEF) configured to receive a parameter request for a virtual object from the EPF, the mNEF being configured to transmits the parameter request to a virtual application function (VAF).
Zhang is directed to data transmission in mobile network (abstract). In particular, Zhang teaches a modified network exposure function (mNEF) [NEF network element] configured to receive data from the EPF [AF network element], the mNEF being configured to transmit the parameter request to a virtual application function (VAF) [PCF network element] (Fig. 4, par. [0085]-[0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Hu by having a modified network exposure function (mNEF) configured to receive a parameter request for a virtual object from the EPF, the mNEF being configured to transmits the parameter request to a virtual application function (VAF), in order to detect the current user plane function side round trip time threshold value required by the target service flow through the application function network element (par. [0083] in Zhang).
As to claim 17, Hu in view of Zhang teaches that the VAF is configured to request a parameter for the virtual object through the mAMF (par. [0040] in Zhang).
As to claim 20, Hu teaches that the EPF is configured to request a parameter for the UE to the mAMF (par. [0018], [0104]).
Hu fails to expressly teach that the EPF is configured to transmit a parameter request for a virtual object to the mAMF through the VAF.
Zhang is directed to data transmission in mobile network (abstract). In particular, Zhang teaches the EPF is configured to transmit a parameter request for a virtual object to the mAMF through the VAF (par. [0040], [0190], [0249])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Hu by having the EPF is configured to transmit a parameter request for a virtual object to the mAMF through the VAF, in order to detect the current user plane function side round trip time threshold value required by the target service flow through the application function network element (par. [0083] in Zhang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights