DETAILED ACTION
The amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/910,984 filed on April 9, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 2 9 and 16 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered by the Examiner.
On page 11 of the response filed April 2, 2026, Applicant argues, “Goel does not disclose a computing system that directly queries network function modules through a DNS resolver to determine their operational status. Kidokoro does not resolve these deficiencies in the disclosure of Goel.”
Additionally, on pages 11-12 of the response, Applicant further argues, “Kidokoro's failure monitoring device transmits monitoring signals directly to SIP servers and then separately cooperates with a DNS server to exclude records. (See Id., FIG. 2; ¶¶ [0028]-[0030].) Kidokoro does not disclose directly querying network function modules ‘through the DNS resolver’ as recited by amended claim 1. In Kidokoro, the monitoring signals are sent to the SIP servers independently of the DNS server, and the DNS server is only contacted afterward to remove records.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As will be shown in the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office Action, the feature, “by directly querying a network function module through the DNS resolver to determine operational status of the network function module”, added to the independent claims by the current amendment and argued by Applicant as providing novelty over the combination of Goel and Kidokoro is not supported by the written description of the specification as filed. As the feature is clearly not supported by the specification as filed, the feature has not been given patentable weight for the purposes of the application of prior art.
On page 12 of the response, Applicant further argues, “Kidokoro's failure monitoring device is specifically designed for inter-operator IP telephone interconnection scenarios, not for managing network functions within a 5G core network integrated with cloud infrastructure. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine these references because they address fundamentally different network architectures and problems.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 11, 2026, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine periodically transmitting monitoring signals to the NFs and transmitting the dynamic DNS update message causing the DNS server to delete the one or more resource records associated with the NF in response to a number of abnormal responses or non-responses to the monitoring signal meeting a threshold to prevent connection attempts to an unhealthy/failed NF (Kidokoro paragraph 21 and 46).
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding Claim 9, the term “a network function module” recited in lines 7-8 should be “the network function module”;
regarding Claim 16, the term “a network function module” recited in lines 7-8 should be “the network function module”; and
regarding Claims 17-19, the term “the core of the cellular network” recited in the claims should be “the cellular network core”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the network function module is located within an internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem of the core of the cellular network and performing the attempt to connect comprises performing a session initiation protocol (SIP) option for accessing the network function module using the DNS resolver” in lines 1-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the core of the cellular network” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the term “the core of the cellular network” is interpreted as “the cellular network core”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the network function module is located within an evolved packet core (EPC) of the core of the cellular network and performing the attempt to connect comprises performing a general packet radio service (GPRS) tunneling protocol (GTP) ping attempt of the network function module” in lines 1-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the core of the cellular network” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the term “the core of the cellular network” is interpreted as “the cellular network core”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “repeatedly performing the attempt to connect to the network function module, using the DNS resolver, located within the core of the cellular network” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the core of the cellular network” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the term “the core of the cellular network” is interpreted as “the cellular network core”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the operations further comprise limiting a number of network function modules that are removable from the core of the cellular network based on a network size and a network function capacity of the core of the cellular network” in lines 1-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the core of the cellular network” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the term “the core of the cellular network” is interpreted as “the cellular network core”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the DNS resolver is integrated with a cloud infrastructure supporting the cellular network core” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the cellular network core” in the claims.
Additionally, Claim 9 recites the limitation “repeatedly performing, by the computing system directly querying the network function module through the DNS resolver to determine operational status of the network function module, an attempt to connect, using the DNS resolver, to a network function module located within a core of a cellular network” in lines 5-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the network function module”, recited in lines 5-6, in the claims. Additionally, the relationship between the term “a core of a cellular network” recited in line 8 and “the cellular network core” recited earlier in the claim is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent Claims 10-15 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 9 in view of their dependence thereon.
For examination purposes, the term “the cellular network core” recited in line 3 is interpreted as “a cellular network core”, the term “the network function module” recited in lines 5-6 is interpreted as “a network function module”, and the term “a core of a cellular network” recited in line 8 is interpreted as “the cellular network core”.
Regarding Claims 12-15, the relationship between the term “the core of the cellular network” recited in the limitations of these claims and the term “the cellular network core” recited in Claim 9 is unclear, rendering the claims indefinite.
For examination purposes, the term “the core of the cellular network” recited in these claims is interpreted as “the cellular network core”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “repeatedly performing, by directly querying the network function module through the DNS resolver to determine operational status of the network function module, an attempt to connect to a network function module located within a core of a cellular network, wherein the DNS resolver is integrated with a cloud infrastructure supporting the cellular network core” in lines 5-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the network function module”, recited in line 5, in the claims. Additionally, the relationship between the term “the cellular network core” recited in line 9 and “a core of a cellular network” recited earlier in the claim is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent Claims 17-20 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 16 in view of their dependence thereon.
For examination purposes, the term “the network function module” recited in line 5 is interpreted as “a network function module”, and the term “a core of a cellular network” recited in line 8 is interpreted as “a cellular network core”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “repeatedly performing, by directly querying the network function module through the DNS resolver to determine operational status of the network function module, an attempt to connect to a network function module located within a core of a cellular network, wherein the DNS resolver is integrated with a cloud infrastructure supporting the cellular network core” in lines 10-13. Paragraph [0063] of the specification states:
“In some embodiments, the NF manager computing system 140 is coupled to or integrated with the DNS resolver 101 and configured to repeatedly perform an attempt to connect, using the DNS resolver 101, to the network function modules 124 located within the core network 130. The NF manager computing system 140, for example, can take the IP details from A/AAA records of the DNS resolver 101, e.g., by executing an application programming interface (API) 142 configured to manage records stored by the DNS resolver. Based on the hosted zoned of the record stored at the DNS resolver, the NF manager computing system 140 can select the correct protocol and start performing health checks of the network function modules 124. For example, the NF manager computing system 140 can employ SIP protocol options to determine connectively to and health of the network function modules 124 at the IMS 134. Further, the NF manager computing system 140 can employ GTP ping attempts at the network function modules 124 at the EPC 138, e.g., to verify connectivity and health of the network function modules 124 (emphasis added).”
Figure 1B, which corresponds with the disclosure of paragraph [0063], is shown below, with relevant portions highlighted.
PNG
media_image1.png
883
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in Figure 1B, the element, “SIP (Options)” and “GTP (PING)”, i.e., the attempts to connect, are made directly by “NF Manager Computing System 140”, which corresponds to “the computing system” of the claim, to “network function modules 124” residing within the IMS and EPC, bypassing the DNS resolver altogether.
Therefore, while the specification discloses that the computing system may select the correct protocol to utilize for health checking of the network function modules, i.e., the attempts to connect, based on the hosted zones of A/AAAA records corresponding to the network function modules, there is insufficient written description support for repeatedly performing an attempt to connect to the network function module “by directly querying a network function module through the DNS resolver to determine operational status of the network function module” as claimed.
Dependent Claims 2-8 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of their dependence thereon.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 10-15 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 9 in view of their dependence thereon.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 17-20 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 16 in view of their dependence thereon.
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, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel, Pub. No. US 2023/0164110 A1, in view of Salkintzis et al., US 2022/0394088 A1, hereby “Salkintzis”, and in further view of Kidokoro et al., Pub. No. US 2021/0029005 A1, hereby “Kidokoro”.
Regarding Claim 1, Goel discloses “A computing system for functional integration with a domain name system (DNS) resolver... (Goel figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 18, 56, 71 and 74: network function repository function (NRF) 100 for dynamically updating domain name system (DNS) records), and the computing system comprises:
one or more processing devices (Goel figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 18 and 74: processor 400); and
memory communicatively coupled with and readable by the one or more processing devices and having stored therein processor-readable instructions (Goel figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 18, 27 and 74: memory 402) which, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising:”
... causing the DNS resolver to remove one or more records, for the network function module, from a hosted zone that includes the network function module (Goel fig. 3 and paragraphs 71-72: NRF 100 sends a dynamic DNS update message to DNS server 202 that causes the DNS server to delete one or more resource records (RRs) for the NF, wherein the update request specifies the zone to be updated).”
However, while Goel discloses a DNS server and that the network functions may comprise 5G core network functions (Goel fig. 3 and paragraph 71), Goel does not explicitly disclose “A computing system for functional integration with a domain name system (DNS) resolver, wherein the DNS resolver is integrated with a cloud infrastructure supporting a cellular network core (emphasis added)”.
In a related field of endeavor, Salkintzis discloses a cloud-based DNS server (Salkintzis figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 54-56 and 60: cloud DNS server 233).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Goel to utilize a cloud-based DNS server as taught by Salkintzis because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a cloud-based DNS server) for another (a DNS server) to obtain predictable and desirable results (maintaining resource records for the network functions of the 5C core network). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
However, while Goel discloses that the DNS server maintains DNS records for network functions (NFs) of a 5G core network (Goel paragraphs 10, 38 and 71), and further discloses sending, by the NRF, the dynamic DNS update message to the DNS server causing the deletion of the resource records for the NF in response to receiving an NF deregister message (Goel paragraph 71), the combination of Goel and Salkintzis does not explicitly disclose “repeatedly performing, by directly querying a network function module through the DNS resolver to determine operational status of the network function module, an attempt to connect to the network function module located within the cellular network core; and
in response to detecting a first threshold number of unsuccessful connection attempts to the network function module, causing the DNS resolver to remove one or more records, for the network function module, from a hosted zone that includes the network function module (emphasis added).”
In a related field of endeavor, Kidokoro discloses a failure monitoring device that periodically transmits a monitoring signal, i.e., an attempt to connect, to each SIP server identified in a list maintained by a DNS server (Kidokoro figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 35-38 and 45: monitoring unit 11 of failure monitoring device 10 regularly transmits a monitoring signal to SIP server 2 that is a monitoring target) and transmits an exclusion notification to a DNS server, which causes the DNS server to remove the SRV and A records associated with the SIP server, in response to a number of abnormal responses or non-responses to the monitoring signal meeting a threshold (Kidokoro figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 45-46 and 52: when the number of times an abnormality is detected, e.g., a number of times SIP server 2 fails to respond, satisfies a number of times set in advance, control unit 12 of failure monitoring device 10 transmits an exclusion notification to DNS server 1, which causes the DNS server to remove the SRV record and A record associated with SIP server 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Goel, as modified by Salkintzis, to periodically transmit monitoring signals to the NFs and to transmit the dynamic DNS update message causing the DNS server to delete the one or more resource records associated with the NF in response to a number of abnormal responses or non-responses to the monitoring signal meeting a threshold as taught by Kidokoro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine periodically transmitting monitoring signals to the NFs and transmitting the dynamic DNS update message causing the DNS server to delete the one or more resource records associated with the NF in response to a number of abnormal responses or non-responses to the monitoring signal meeting a threshold to prevent connection attempts to an unhealthy/failed NF (Kidokoro paragraph 21 and 46).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Goel discloses “wherein the one or more records comprises at least a first record that points a domain to an internet protocol address for the network function module (Goel paragraphs 10, 73 and 75: the resource records include at least an ‘A’ record that maps a domain name of the NF to an IPv4 address of the NF).”
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Goel discloses “...causing the DNS resolver to add one or more records, for the network function module, to a hosted zone that includes the network function module (Goel fig. 3 and paragraphs 71-72: NRF 100 sends a dynamic DNS update message to DNS server 202 that causes the DNS server to create one or more resource records (RRs) for the NF, wherein the update request specifies the zone to be updated)”.
However, while Goel discloses that the DNS server maintains DNS records for network functions (NFs) of a 5G core network (Goel paragraphs 10, 38 and 71), and further discloses sending, by the NRF, the dynamic DNS update message to the DNS server causing the creation of the resource records for the NF in response to receiving an NF register message (Goel paragraph 71), Goel does not explicitly disclose “wherein, after removal of the one or more records from the DNS resolver, the operations further comprise:
repeatedly performing the attempt to connect to the network function module, using the DNS resolver, located within the core of the cellular network; and
in response to detecting a second threshold number of successful connection attempts to the network function module, causing the DNS resolver to add one or more records, for the network function module, to a hosted zone that includes the network function module (emphasis added).”
In a related field of endeavor, Kidokoro discloses, after the removal of the SRV and A records of the failed SIP server by the DNS server, the failure monitoring device continues to periodically transmit the monitoring signal to the failed SIP server (Kidokoro figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 12, 31, and 46-47: after DNS records of failed SIP server 21 have been removed by DNS server 1, monitoring unit 11 continues to transmit a monitoring signal to the failed SIP server 21) and transmits a re-registration notification to the DNS server, which causes the DNS server to add the SRV and A records associated with the SIP server, in response to a number of normal responses to the monitoring signal meeting a threshold (Kidokoro figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 13, 31, 47-48 and 53: in response to determining a number of normal responses received from SIP server 21 satisfies a number of times set in advance, monitoring unit 11 transmits a re-registration notification to DNS server 1, causing the DNS server to add the SRV record and A record of SIP server 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Goel, as modified by Salkintzis, to continue to transmit monitoring signals to the unhealthy/failed NF and to transmit the dynamic DNS update message causing the DNS server to create the one or more resource records associated with the NF in response to a number of normal responses to the monitoring signal meeting a threshold as taught by Kidokoro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine continuing transmitting monitoring signals to the unhealthy/failed NF and to transmit the dynamic DNS update message causing the DNS server to create the one or more resource records associated with the NF in response to a number of normal responses to the monitoring signal meeting a threshold to re-enable connections to the restored NF automatically (Kidokoro paragraph 61).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Goel discloses “A method for operating a computing system for functional integration with a domain name system (DNS) resolver... (Goel fig. 5 and paragraphs 8 and 78: a method for dynamically updating DNS records for NFs).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 4.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 7.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Goel discloses “One or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media having computer-readable instructions... (Goel fig. 5 and paragraphs 27-28 and 78: one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions executable by a processor to dynamically update DNS records for NFs).”
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 7.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro in view of Diaby et al., the paper titled “Cloud Computing: A review of the Concepts and Deployment Models”, hereby “Diaby”.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Goel discloses a DNS server and that the network functions may comprise 5G core network functions (Goel fig. 3 and paragraph 71), and Salkintzis discloses a cloud-based DNS server (Salkintzis figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 54-56 and 60), the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro does not explicitly disclose “wherein the DNS resolver is located in a public cloud server network and the cellular network core is part of a 5G wireless network (emphasis added).
In a related field of endeavor, Diaby discloses a public cloud deployment model (Diaby page 54, § “B. The public cloud”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Goel, as modified by Salkintzis and Kidokoro, to locate the cloud-based DNS server in a public cloud as taught by Diaby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine locating the cloud-based DNS server in a public cloud to provide elasticity, availability and reliability of the cloud-based DNS server while reducing costs (Diaby page 54, § “B. The public cloud”).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro in view of Rajput et al., US 2023/0164109 A1, hereby “Rajput 109”.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Goel discloses the dynamic DNS update message causing removal of the resource records of the NF is generated in accordance with IETF RFC 2136 (Goel paragraphs 56 and 72), the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro does not explicitly disclose “wherein causing the DNS resolver to remove the one or more records comprises executing an application programming interface (API) configured to manage records stored by the DNS resolver.”
In the same field of endeavor, Rajput 109 discloses a NRF that configures a DNS server by transmitting a message formatted based on an API published by the DNS (Rajput 109 fig. 6 and paragraphs 18 and 67: NRF 100A automatically configures DNS 404A by transmitting a message formatted according to an API published by the DNS).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Goel, as modified by Salkintzis and Kidokoro, to transmit the dynamic DNS update message in a format based on an API published by the DNS server as taught by Rajput 109 because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (transmitting a message formatted based on an API published by the DNS server) to known devices and/or methods (an NRF) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (dynamically updating resource records of the DNS server). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 3.
Claims 5, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro in view of Chiang, Pub. No. US 2017/0085455 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Kidokoro suggests using the SIP OPTIONS method as the monitoring signal (Kidokoro paragraphs 28 and 45), the combination of Goel and Kidokoro does not explicitly disclose “wherein the network function module is located within an internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem of the core of the cellular network and performing the attempt to connect comprises performing a session initiation protocol (SIP) option for accessing the network function module using the DNS resolver.”
In a related field of endeavor, Chiang suggests monitoring network functions of an IMS network of a cellular network by polling the network functions using the SIP OPTION method (Chiang figs. 2A-2B and paragraphs 22, 31 and 40-41: traffic distribution server 224 may utilize the SIP OPTION method to monitor the health of S-CSCF node 208 within IMS network 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Goel, as modified by Salkintzis and Kidokoro, to monitor network functions of an IMS network using the SIP OPTION method as suggested by Chiang because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (using SIP OPTION method to monitor network functions of an IMS network) to known devices and/or methods (an NRF) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (monitoring health of network functions in an IMS network). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Insofar as they recite similar claim elements, Claims 12 and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 5.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro in view of Calippe et al., Pub. No. US 2021/0267980 A1, hereby “Calippe”.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Goel discloses that the network functions may comprise 4G core network functions, i.e., network functions of an EPC (Goel fig. 3 and paragraph 71) and Kidokoro suggests using the SIP OPTIONS method as the monitoring signal (Kidokoro paragraphs 28 and 45), the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro does not explicitly disclose “wherein the network function module is located within an evolved packet core (EPC) of the core of the cellular network and performing the attempt to connect comprises performing a general packet radio service (GPRS) tunneling protocol (GTP) ping attempt of the network function module (emphasis added).”
In a related field of endeavor, Calippe suggests using GTP ping tests to monitor the health of components of an LTE network, i.e., network functions of an EPC (Calippe fig. 1 and paragraphs 22, 131, 141 and 163-164: management system (MS) 140 may use ping tests, including GTP ping, to ensure components of LTE network 110 are operational and not degraded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Goel, as modified by Salkintzis and Kidokoro, to monitor network functions of the 4G core network using GTP ping as suggested by Calippe because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (using GTP ping to monitor network functions of an EPC network) to known devices and/or methods (an NRF) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (monitoring health of network functions of a legacy 4G/LTE network). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Insofar as they recite similar claim elements, Claims 13 and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 6.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro in view of Rajput et al., Pub. No. US 2022/0360991 A1, hereby “Rajput 991”.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Goel discloses that each of the network functions has an associated capacity (Goel paragraphs 4 and 36), the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro does not explicitly disclose “wherein the operations further comprise limiting a number of network function modules that are removable from the core of the cellular network based on a network size and a network function capacity of the core of the cellular network.”
In the same field of endeavor, Rajput 991 suggests limiting the number of network functions of the same type that can be removed from the 5G core network based on minimum number of NFs that should be registered (Rajput paragraphs 11, 50, 58 and 91: a minimum number of NF instances of a particular type is specified by a network operator – while not explicitly stated, it is readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the minimum number of NF instances could be based on the network size and the capacity of the NFs).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Goel, as modified by Salkintzis and Kidokoro, to limit the number of NF instances of a particular type that can be deregistered based on a minimum number of NFs as suggested by Rajput 991. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine limiting the number of NF instances of a particular type that can be deregistered based on a minimum number of NFs to prevent a network outage (Rajput 991 paragraph 7).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 8.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro in view of Rajput 109 and in further view of Rajput 991.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Kidokoro discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16.
However, while Goel discloses the dynamic DNS update message causing removal of the resource records of the NF is generated in accordance with IETF RFC 2136 (Goel paragraphs 56 and 72), the combination of Goel and Kidokoro does not explicitly disclose “wherein causing the DNS resolver to remove the one or more records comprises executing an application programming interface (API) configured to manage records stored by the DNS resolver, wherein the operations further comprise limiting a number of network function modules that are removable from the core of the cellular network based on a network size and a network function capacity of the core of the cellular network.”
In the same field of endeavor, Rajput 109 discloses a NRF that configures a DNS server by transmitting a message formatted based on an API published by the DNS (Rajput 109 fig. 6 and paragraphs 18 and 67: NRF 100A automatically configures DNS 404A by transmitting a message formatted according to an API published by the DNS).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the instructions stored by the computer readable storage medium of Goel, as modified by Salkintzis and Kidokoro, to transmit the dynamic DNS update message in a format based on an API published by the DNS server as taught by Rajput 109 because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (transmitting a message formatted based on an API published by the DNS server) to known devices and/or methods (an NRF) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (dynamically updating resource records of the DNS server). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
However, while Goel discloses that each of the network functions has an associated capacity (Goel paragraphs 4 and 36), the combination of Goel, Salkintzis, Kidokoro and Rajput 109 does not explicitly disclose “wherein causing the DNS resolver to remove the one or more records comprises executing an application programming interface (API) configured to manage records stored by the DNS resolver, wherein the operations further comprise limiting a number of network function modules that are removable from the core of the cellular network based on a network size and a network function capacity of the core of the cellular network (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Rajput 991 suggests limiting the number of network functions of the same type that can be removed from the 5G core network based on minimum number of NFs that should be registered (Rajput paragraphs 11, 50, 58 and 91: a minimum number of NF instances of a particular type is specified by a network operator – while not explicitly stated, it is readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the minimum number of NF instances could be based on the network size and the capacity of the NFs).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the instructions stored by the computer readable storage medium of Goel, as modified by Salkintzis, Kidokoro and Rajput 109, to limit the number of NF instances of a particular type that can be deregistered based on a minimum number of NFs as suggested by Rajput 991. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine limiting the number of NF instances of a particular type that can be deregistered based on a minimum number of NFs to prevent a network outage (Rajput 991 paragraph 7).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights