DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/910,984 filed on July 16, 2026. Claims 1, 5-9 and 12-20 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 16, 2026, has been entered.
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 amendment to Claims 9 and 16-19 has overcome the objection to the claims for minor informalities set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 10, 2026. The objection to the claims for minor informalities is hereby withdrawn.
The amendment to Claims 5-9 and 12-16 has overcome the rejection of Claims 5-20 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 joint inventor regards as the invention set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 10, 2026. The rejection of Claims 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
The amendment to Claims 1, 9 and 16 has overcome the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 10, 2026. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is hereby withdrawn.
The amendment to Claims 1, 9 and 16 has overcome the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 10, 2026. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
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”, in further view of Wang et al., Pub. No. US 2021/0385286 A1, hereby “Wang”, 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 “determining, by accessing the DNS resolver, connection information for a network function module located within the cellular network core;
repeatedly performing, using the connection information, via the cellular network core, an attempt to connect to the network function module; 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 the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses “determining, by accessing the DNS resolver, connection information for a network function module located within the cellular network core (Wang figs. 4-5 and paragraphs 63, 68, 75 and 80-82: NRF 202 periodically queries DNS 203 to resolve the FQDN of NF 204 into an IP address);
repeatedly performing, using the connection information, via the cellular network core, an attempt to connect to the network function module (Wang figs. 4-5 and paragraphs 63, 68, 75 and 80-82: NRF 202 checks the reachability of NF 204 using the IP address received from DNS 203, e.g., by sending a ping request to the IP address)”.
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 verify reachability of an NF function using an IP address received from the DNS server as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to periodically verifying reachability of an NF function using an IP address received from the DNS server to optimize service discovery and improve resource efficiency (Wang paragraphs 6 and 88).
However, while Goel 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) and Wang discloses periodically verifying reachability of an NF function using an IP address received from the DNS server (Wang figs. 4-5 and paragraphs 63, 68, 75 and 80-82), the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Wang does not explicitly disclose “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 and Wang, 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 ping request meeting a threshold as taught by Kidokoro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine 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 ping requests 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, Wang 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), the combination of Goel and Salkintzis does not explicitly disclose “wherein, after removal of the one or more records from the DNS resolver, the operations further comprise:
repeatedly accessing the DNS resolver, to determine connection information for the network function module; 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 the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses “repeatedly accessing the DNS resolver, to determine connection information for the network function module (Wang figs. 4-5 and paragraphs 63, 68, 75 and 80-82: NRF 202 periodically queries DNS 203 to resolve the FQDN of NF 204 into an IP address)”.
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 verify reachability of an NF function using an IP address received from the DNS server as taught by Wang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
However, while Goel 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) and Wang discloses periodically verifying reachability of an NF function using an IP address received from the DNS server (Wang figs. 4-5 and paragraphs 63, 68, 75 and 80-82), the combination of Goel, Salkintzis and Wang does not explicitly disclose “wherein, after removal of the one or more records from the DNS resolver, the operations further comprise:
repeatedly accessing the DNS resolver, to determine connection information for the network function module; 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 and Wang, 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, Wang 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, Wang 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, Wang 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, Wang 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, Wang and Kidokoro in view of Rajput et al., US 2023/0164109 A1, hereby “Rajput 109”.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis, Wang 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, Wang 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, Wang 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, Wang and Kidokoro in view of Chiang, Pub. No. US 2017/0085455 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis, Wang 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, Salkintzis, Wang and Kidokoro does not explicitly disclose “wherein the network function module is located within an internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem of the cellular network core 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, Wang 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, Wang and Kidokoro in view of Calippe et al., Pub. No. US 2021/0267980 A1, hereby “Calippe”.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis, Wang 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 Wang suggests using a ping to verify reachability of the network function (Wang paragraphs 68 and 81), the combination of Goel, Salkintzis, Wang and Kidokoro does not explicitly disclose “wherein the network function module is located within an evolved packet core (EPC) of the cellular network core 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, Wang 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, Wang 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, Wang 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, Wang and Kidokoro does not explicitly disclose “wherein the operations further comprise limiting a number of network function modules that are removable from the cellular network core based on a network size and a network function capacity of the cellular network core.”
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, Wang 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, Wang and Kidokoro in view of Rajput 109 and in further view of Rajput 991.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Goel, Salkintzis, Wang 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, Salkintzis, Wang 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 cellular network core based on a network size and a network function capacity of the cellular network core.”
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, Wang 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, Wang, 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 cellular network core based on a network size and a network function capacity of the cellular network core (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, Wang 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Regnault et al., Pub. No. US 2021/0068045 A1, discloses a system and method for registering network functions wherein each network function registered with an NRF periodically transmits a heartbeat to the NRF indicating the network function is healthy and active;
Landais, Pub. No. US 2021/0321245 A1 discloses systems and method for managing network functions wherein an NRF updates a DNS with information of a network function in response to registration of the network function with the NRF and causes the DNS to delete a record corresponding to the network function in response to de-registration of the network function; and
Rajput et al., Pub. No. US 2023/0090068 A1 discloses a system and method for performing FQDN resolution of network functions wherein an NRF obtains IP address and other information of a network function from a DNS server.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this 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
Prosecution Insights