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 .
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on 10/28/2024.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jonathan Olsson et al (WO 2024/043812 A1), hereinafter “Olsson”.
Regarding Claim 1, Olsson discloses a method comprising:
identifying a first network function (NF) device associated with a first validation status indicative of non-validated status (Olsson, Page 11, determining trust score of a first NF device in order to establish a connection with a second NF device);
triggering a service performance evaluation of the first NF device (Olsson, Page 11, using a score-based measurement in order to determine that the first NF is trusted. Page 13, the trust score is based on the measurement data received from the first NF device and/or by taking the NF device’s historic information into consideration);
selecting a second NF device for use in the service performance evaluation of the first NF device, wherein the second NF device is associated with a second validation status indicative of validated status (Olsson, Pages 12-13, a second NF device is used to validate the first NF device );
and performing the service performance evaluation of the first NF device based upon a first service performance profile associated with the first NF device and a second service performance profile associated with the second NF device (Olsson, Page 13, receiving measurement data from the first NF device in order to determine the trust score of the first NF device).
Regarding Claim 2, Olsson discloses the method of claim 1 above, comprising:
in response to the service performance evaluation providing a positive evaluation result, updating the first validation status to be indicative of validated status (Olsson, Page 16, indication that the first NF device is trusted).
Regarding Claim 3, Olsson discloses the method of claim 1 above, comprising:
in response to the service performance evaluation providing a negative evaluation result, triggering a self-remediation device to address a service performance issue associated with the first NF device (Olsson, Page 16, determining that the NF device is not trusted. Page 17, rejecting connection establishment request of the first NF device. Page 19, revoking the security certificate).
Regarding Claim 4, Olsson discloses the method of claim 1 above, comprising:
generating an evaluation report based upon an evaluation result of the service performance evaluation; and providing the evaluation report to user equipment (UE) for display (Olsson, Page 16, sending indication of access control decision and trust score).
Regarding Claim 5, Olsson discloses the method of claim 1 above, comprising:
monitoring network activity of a network (Olsson, Page 10, detecting interactions between entities in the system);
detecting an addition of the first NF device to the network (Olsson, Page 11, detecting interactions between a first NF device, a second NF device, etc.);
and setting the first validation status associated with the first NF device to the non-validated status based upon a determination that the first NF device was not successfully validated since the addition of the first NF device to the network (Olsson, Page 11, first NF device sends measurements data for enabling measurement of trust of the determination of the trust score).
Regarding Claim 6, Olsson discloses the method of claim 1 above, comprising:
detecting a service performance issue associated with the first NF device (Olsson, Page 12, the first NF device periodically sends measurement data in order to update the trust measurement for the NF device);
and setting the first validation status associated with the first NF device to the non-validated status based upon the service performance issue (Olsson, Pages 16, 23, determination that the NF device is not trusted).
Regarding Claim 7, Olsson discloses the method of claim 1 above, comprising:
comparing a traffic volume metric associated with the first NF device with a threshold traffic volume metric, wherein the service performance evaluation is at least one of triggered or performed in response to a determination that the traffic volume metric meets the threshold traffic volume metric (Olsson, Pages 11-12, sending measurement data for enabling measurement of trust or the determination of the trust score).
Regarding Claim 8, Olsson discloses the method of claim 1 above, comprising:
determining whether the first NF device is associated with normalized service performance, wherein the service performance evaluation is at least one of triggered or performed in response to a determination that the first NF device is associated with normalized service performance (Olsson, Pages 12-13, determination is made that the NF device is trusted based on information received from the NF device).
Regarding Claim 9, Olsson discloses the method of claim 1 above, comprising:
determining a first geolocation associated with the first NF device (Olsson, Page 12, measurement data include information about the device, location, access network type, etc.);
and determining a second geolocation associated with the second NF device, wherein the second NF device is selected for use in the service performance evaluation of the first NF device in response to determining that the second NF device is within a proximity of the first NF device based upon the first geolocation and the second geolocation (Olsson, Page 12, measurement data from NF devices include information about the device, location, access network type, etc.).
Regarding Claim 10, Olsson discloses the method of claim 1 above, comprising: determining a device type of the first NF device, wherein the service performance evaluation is performed based upon the device type (Olsson, Page 12, measurement data include information about the device, location, access network type, etc.).
Claim 11 carries similar limitations as discussed with regards to Claim 1 above and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 12, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 16, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 carries similar limitations as discussed with regards to Claim 1 and Claim 11 above and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 20, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 2 and Claim 12 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All the references listed on 892 are related to the subject matter of
Some of the prior art include:
US 10602422 B1, which discloses a method of application-based user equipment route selection policy.
US 20200084127 A1, which discloses a method of a service-based interface architecture.
US 20210144076 A1, which discloses a method of optimization of network data analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER O GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 4 pm EST.
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, Brian J Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/JAVIER O GUZMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights