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 .
Response to the Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment to the claims and specification, dated January 16, 2025, has been fully considered and is entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20-22, 25, and 28-30 are examined while claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 19, 23-24, 26-27, and 31-34 have been canceled.
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20-22, 25, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 12, 21, and 28-30, these claims recite a process and a machine, thus falling within the defined statutory categories of invention (step 1 of the 101 analysis is YES). The claims describe a concept of sending and receiving information and updating records. These operations are deemed to be mental processes and processes performed by a human, which, while being claimed as implemented by a generic “function element”, do not require a special purpose computer to perform the claimed steps and are capable to be performed in the human mind including a perception (hearing or vision), evaluation, judgement, and opinion (step 2A prong one is YES).
In particular, as to claims 1 and 12, step of receiving a request can be performed in the human mind visually in the form of a predefined sequence of blinking lights or audibly or by someone handing a person a piece of paper with a request written it; the step of managing the service, as further defined in claim 3, amounts to cross-checking records to determine whether a condition is satisfied, storing ID corresponding to the service, and forwarding the request to another entity. This process mimics the sequence of steps performed by DMV clerks at a department of motor vehicles. A clerk would take a paper vehicle registration (or form to obtain a driver’s license) from a customer, cross-check if the customer is allowed to register a vehicle or obtain driver’s license (for example by comparing the customer’s name or VIN number with a “black list”), make some notes on the papers, and forward the application to another clerk for processing. Therefore, “managing the service” can be performed mentally or with pen and paper adding an ID of a network function to a spreadsheet. The step of sending a management result once again is recited at the high level of generality that can be implemented by handing a piece of paper back to the customer with the vehicle registration outcome.
As to claim 21, steps of sending a request and receiving a result are even broader than those of claims 1 and 12 in a way that does not require any mental processing at all. This claim reads on a person can simply giving a vehicle registration form a clerk and getting a paper back with the registration result outcome, which can also be performed in the human mind audibly by making an oral request and obtain an oral result/response.
There is nothing in the claims that would require a special computer processing to accomplish these tasks that would be unreasonable to perform in a human mind in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, Examiner determined that each of the claimed steps can be reasonably handled by a human without undue effort. The claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (step 2A prong two is NO). The claims do not recite any specific, non-conventional arrangement of hardware, any particular algorithm or data structure for making the detection and decision to instruct a task, nor any concrete improvement to the functioning of the equipment or the network (for example, an improvement tied to particular operations). Sending a registration request, updating records, and receiving a registration result has been notoriously old and well known as process. Because the claim merely instructs implementation of the abstract idea using conventional functional elements, the additional recited elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore does not confer patent eligibility.
The claims do not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (step 2B is NO). Therefore, the claims are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. As discussed above, reciting a NEF, an AF, and a NRF amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea on a generic function element. Mere invocation of generic function elements that are not tied to a particular environment such as 3GPP architecture or 5G network to automate an abstract process cannot supply an inventive concept. Accordingly, claims 1, 12, 21, and 28-30are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims further define existing steps (via “wherein” clauses) and recite additional steps that can still be reasonably performed by the human mind without requiring a computer to perform the tasks that human cannot. None of the dependent claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claims 28-30, use of the phrase “function element” does not inherently mean that the claim is directed to a machine. Only if at least one of the clamed elements of the function element is a physical part of a device can the function element 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 function element is not claimed to comprise any hardware. Neither the claim nor specification provide a specific definition for the claimed NEF, AF, and NRF as necessarily including hardware. Therefore, the claimed elements are broad enough to be implemented completely in software and transitory medium, which renders claims 28-30 non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-3, 5, 12-14, 16, 21-22, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (US 2021/0377896 A1).
As to claim 1, Wei teaches a third-party service management method, performed by a network exposure function (NEF) element (par. [0019]), comprising:
receiving a first management request for managing a third-party service sent by an application function (AF) element [receiving a first registration information 103 from the external network entity 101 (AF)] (par. [0065]-[0067]), wherein the first management request indicates the third-party service that is provided by a third-party application [first registration information includes a service profile of the service 108] (par. [0067]);
managing the third-party service based on the first management request [NEF 100 creates a clone 107 of the service 108 based on the first registration information and provides a second registration information 104 to the other network entity 102 NRF] (par. [0067]); and
sending a management result to the AF element [providing a second registration response 106 to the external network entity AF 101] (par. [0069]).
As to claim 2, Wei teaches that receiving the first management request for managing the third-party service sent by the AF comprises: receiving a first registration request for registering the third-party service sent by the AF element (par. [0067]), wherein the first registration request comprises registration information of the third-party service [AF profile] (Fig. 3, par. [0121]); and the registration information comprising at least one of: a network function (NF) identifier (ID) corresponding to the third-party service; an NF type corresponding to the third-party service; an NF supported service corresponding to the third-party service; or a public land mobile network (PLMN) ID corresponding to the third-party application [service ID] (par. [0119]).
As to claim 3, Wei teaches that managing the third-party service based on the first management request comprises: determining whether the third-party service satisfies an authorization condition based on the registration information of the third-party service [perform authorization and registration mapping] (par. [0132]);
storing the NF ID corresponding to the third-party service in response to determining that the third-party service satisfies the authorization condition [service ID] (par. [0119]);
sending a second registration request for registering the third-party service to a network repository function (NRF) element, wherein the second registration request comprises the registration information and an NEF ID (par. [0093]); and
receiving a registration success response sent by the NRF element (par. [0095]), wherein sending the management result to the AF element comprises sending a registration success response to the AF element (par. [0096]).
As to claim 5, Wei teaches that managing the third-party service based on the first management request comprises: determining whether the third-party service satisfies an authorization condition based on the registration information of the third-party service [perform authorization and registration mapping] (par. [0132]); and
determining that registration of the third-party service has failed in response to the registration information of the third-party service not satisfying the authorization condition (par. [0132]-[0133]), wherein sending the management result to the AF element comprises sending a registration failure response to the AF element (par. [0069], [0096]).
As to claim 12, Wei teaches a third-party service management method, performed by a network repository function (NRF) element [the other network entity 102] (par. [0019]), comprising:
receiving a second management request for managing a third-party service sent by a network exposure function (NEF) element [receiving a second registration information 104 from the NEF 100] (par. [0067]-[0068]), wherein the second management request indicates the third-party service that is provided by a third-party application [second registration information includes a clone service profile of the close service 107] (par. [0067]);
managing the third-party service based on the second management request [registering the close service 107 base on the second registration information 104] (par. [0068]); and
sending a management result to the NEF element [sending a first registration response 105] (par. [0068]).
As to claim 13, Wei teaches all the elements as discussed per claim 2 above.
As to claim 14, Wei teaches that managing the third-party service based on the second management request comprises at least one of: generating a configuration file for registering the third-party service based on the registration information of the third-party service and the NEF ID; or setting an available status corresponding to the third-party service to be as available, wherein sending the management result to the NEF element comprises sending a registration success response to the NEF element (par. [0068], [0094], [0138]).
As to claim 16, Wei teaches sending a first notification message to a specific NF element, wherein the specific NF element is a network element that has subscribed to a service change event, and the first notification message indicates that registration of the third-party service has completed (par. [0103]).
As to claim 21, Wei teaches a third-party service management method, performed by an application function (AF) element [external network entity AF 101/201] (par. [0019]), comprising:
sending a first management request for managing a third-party service to a network exposure function (NEF) element [sending a first registration information 103 to the NEF 100/200] (par. [0065]-[0067]), wherein the first management request indicates the third-party service that is provided by a third-party application [first registration information includes a service profile of the service 108] (par. [0067]); and
receiving a management result sent by the NEF element [receiving a second registration response 106 from the NEF 100/200] (par. [0069]).
As to claim 22, Wei teaches all the elements as discussed per claims 2-3 above.
As to claim 28, Wei teaches a network exposure function (NEF) element [NEF 100/200] (Figs. 1 and 3) configured to perform the third-party service management method according to claim 1.
As to claim 29, Wei teaches a network repository function (NRF) element [NRF 102] (Figs. 1 and 3) configured to perform the third-party service management method according to claim 12.
As to claim 30, Wei teaches an application function (AF) element [3P AF] 101/201] (Figs. 1 and 3) configured to perform the third-party service management method according to claim 21.
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 7-8, 10, 17-18, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. in view of Kweon et al. (US 2023/0143200 A1).
As to claim 7, Wei teaches allowing external entity 201AF to deregister the service via request/response procedure (par. [0080], [0131]).
However, Wei fails to expressly teach that receiving the first management request for managing the third-party service sent by the AF element comprises: receiving a first cancellation request for cancelling the third-party service sent by the AF element, wherein the first cancellation request comprises cancellation information of the third-party service; and the cancellation information comprising at least one of: an NF ID corresponding to the third-party service; or a PLMN ID corresponding to the third-party application.
Kweon teaches AF 201 transmitting a service cancellation message to an NEF 203 (step 210 in Fig. 2, par. [0064]-[0065]), wherein the first cancellation request comprises cancellation information of the service; and the cancellation information comprising at least one of: an NF ID corresponding to the service; or a PLMN ID corresponding to the application (par. [0109]).
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 Wei by receiving a first cancellation request for cancelling the third-party service sent by the AF element in order to notify NEF of the changes to the third-party service provided by the AF (par. [0111] in Kweon).
As to claim 8, Wei in view of Kweon teaches that managing the third-party service based on the first management request comprises: determining whether the third-party service satisfies a cancellation condition based on the cancellation information of the third-party service [perform authorization and registration mapping] (par. [0132] in Wei);
sending a second cancellation request for cancelling the third-party service to an NRF element in response to determining that the third-party service satisfies the cancellation condition, wherein the second cancellation request comprises the cancellation information (par. [0111] in Kweon); and
deleting an NF ID corresponding to the third-party service in response to receiving a cancellation success response sent by the NRF element, wherein sending the management result to the AF element comprises sending a cancellation success response to the AF element (par. [0114]-[0115] in Kweon).
As to claim 10, Wei in view of Kweon teaches that managing the third-party service based on the first management request comprises: determining whether the third-party service satisfies a cancellation condition based on the cancellation information of the third-party service [perform authorization and registration mapping] (par. [0132] in Wei); and
determining that cancellation of the third-party service has failed in response to the cancellation information of the third-party service not satisfying the cancellation condition (par. [0132]-[0133] in Wei), wherein sending the management result to the AF element comprises sending a cancellation failure response to the AF element (par. [0069], [0096] in Wei, par. [0115] in Kweon).
As to claims 17-18 and 25, Wei in view of Kweon teaches all the elements as discussed per claims 7-8 above.
As to claim 20, Wei teaches all the elements as discussed per claim 16 above.
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