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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority/Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of domestic priority data as claimed by applicant application is a 371 of PCT/SE2022/050810 has been filed 09/14/2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, 33 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities. Each claim recites "an application function, AF, device", which should read "an application function[[,]] (AF)[[,]] device ", appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 16, 33 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities. Each claim recites "at least one network exposure function, NEF, device", which should read " at least one network exposure function[[,]] (NEF)[[,]] device ", appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected because the acronym ‘MNO' as recited and should be spelled out and/or defined the first time it is recited in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22, 40 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 22, it recites the limitation “the second response message”. The claim does not have a previous recitation of “a second response message”, and as a result, lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 40, it recites the limitation "an application function, AF, device" and "at least one network exposure function, NEF, device" twice. It is not clear if the second recitation is the same entity as the first recitation or not. Therefore, the claim in indefinite. Appropriate corrections is required to ensure proper claim interpretation.
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, 12-13, 16-23, 26-28, 33-35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding to Claim 1:
First, Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Second, claim 1 is analyzed for its underlying inventive concept:
Step 2A Prong One:
The limitation of
“sending a first message registering a smart contract on a blockchain network, for accessing a service provided by at least one network exposure function, NEF, device;
sending a second message subscribing to notification of an event provided by the at least one NEF device;
receiving at least one first response message notifying about the event, receiving the first response message triggering an execution of the smart contract on the blockchain network”,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activities with the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a blockchain network”, “NEF, device” and “smart contract”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by human. For example, but for the generic competent, sending registering and subscribing messages and response message to notify an event and trigger an action as claimed encompasses a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional elements. Accordingly, it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Third, Step 2B: claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the element of “a blockchain network”, “NEF, device” and “smart contract” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-13, when analyzed individually or as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception, and thereby non-statutory.
Claims 14-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons recited in claims 1-13.
Regarding Claim 2: Adds sending a request for authorizing the AF device to access the service, receiving an authorization response, wherein the authorization response includes one of: an indication that the AF device is authorized or an indication that the AF device is not authorized using generic computing system, and thus does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 3: Specifies that the AF device is authorized according to a Role-based Authorization Control authorization procedure or a Task-based Authorization Control authorization. The added detail of authorization does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 12: Specifies that the AF device is part of the blockchain network. The added network connection does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 13: Specifies the AF device comprises a blockchain host performing the sending the first message, sending the second message and receiving the at least one first response message. The added limitations are generic computer functions and does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding to Claim 16:
First, claim 16 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Second, claim 16 is analyzed for its underlying inventive concept:
Step 2A Prong One:
The limitation of
“receiving a first notification message notifying about registration of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is registered on a blockchain network by an application function, AF, device;
receiving a second notification message notifying about subscription, by the AF device, to an event; and
sending a first response message registering a response notifying about the event”,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activities with the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a blockchain network”, “AF, device” and “smart contract”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by human. For example, but for the generic competent, receiving registering and subscribing notification and sending response message to notify an event as claimed encompasses a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional elements. Accordingly, it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Third, Step 2B: claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the element of “a blockchain network”, “AF, device” and “smart contract” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17: Adds sending a second response message registering a response responsive to receiving the first notification message using generic computing system, and thus does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 20: Specifies that wherein when the monitoring event is Location Reporting, the smart contract comprises at least one of the following data:
a Service Capability Server/Application Server, SCS/AS, Identifier;
a Monitoring type;
an end-user identity;
maximum number of reports;
monitoring duration; and
a Mode option set to value PULL. The added detail of smart contract does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 21: Specifies wherein when the monitoring event is Location Reporting, the smart contract comprises at least one of the following data:
a Service Capability Server/Application Server, SCS/AS, Identifier;
a Monitoring type;
an end-user identity;
maximum number of reports;
monitoring duration; and
a Mode option set to value PUSH. The added detail of smart contract does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 22: Specifies when the event is Location Reporting, the first response message or the second response message comprises at least one of the following data:
time stamp;
user location information; and
MNO identifier. The added limitations does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 23: Specifies when the monitoring event is Number of UEs present in a geographic area, the smart contract comprises at least one of the following data:
a Service Capability Server/Application Server, SCS/AS, Identifier;
a Monitoring type;
a monitoring area; and
a Mode option set to value PULL. The added limitations do not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 26: Specifies wherein the AF device and the NEF device are part of the blockchain network. The added limitations do not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 27: Specifies the NEF device comprises a blockchain host performing the receiving the first notification, receiving the second notification and the sending. The added limitations do not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more
Claims 33-35 and 40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for same reasons recited in claims 1-3 and 16.
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, 12-13, 16, 18-19, 26-28, 33-35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (U.S. 2021/0342803).
Regarding claim 1: Yoo teaches: A method performed by an application function, AF, device, the method comprising:
sending a first message registering a smart contract on a blockchain network, for accessing a service provided by at least one network exposure function, NEF, device (Yoo - [0096]: The participant node 20 may be registered in the blockchain network by sending a participant registration transaction to the registration smart contract module 221 using the registration management function 112 of the participant decentralizing functional module 110 [0076]: the application service provider may define an application function (AF) in the 5G network, and the application service provider may dynamically control the 5G network service through a network exposure function (NEF) using the AF.);
sending a second message subscribing to notification of an event provided by the at least one NEF device (Yoo - [0165]: the user node 30 may store the subscriber information and the service profile of the provider node 40 by creating the subscriber account. The user node 30 may subscribe to the event notification service for the participant registration status of the provider node through the blockchain front-end 210); and
receiving at least one first response message notifying about the event (Yoo - [0124]: The blockchain front-end 210 may notify the event of the malicious behavior (S430)), receiving the first response message triggering an execution of the smart contract on the blockchain network (Yoo - [0088]: The blockchain front-end 210 may receive and process a service request for a smart contract through the blockchain interface, and may notify the participant or the service entity of the processing result for the service request).
Regarding claim 2: Yoo teaches: further comprising:
sending a request for authorizing the AF device to access the service (Yoo - [0138]: the participant decentralizing functional module 110 of the user node 30 may request authentication of the provider node 40 and the public key of the provider node 40 to the blockchain system 200); and
receiving an authorization response, wherein the authorization response includes one of: an indication that the AF device is authorized or an indication that the AF device is not authorized (Yoo -[0138]: transfer an authentication result and the public key of the provider node 40 to the user node 30 via the blockchain front-end 210 when the authentication of the provider node 40 is successful).
Regarding claim 3: Yoo teaches: wherein the AF device is authorized according to a Role-based Authorization Control authorization procedure or a Task-based Authorization Control authorization procedure (Yoo - [0167]: The provider may set the service authority to the service entity so that only a specific user can access the service).
Regarding claim 12: Yoo teaches: wherein the AF device is part of the blockchain network (Yoo - [0076]: the application service provider may define an application function (AF) in the 5G network, and the application service provider may dynamically control the 5G network service through a network exposure function (NEF) using the AF).
Regarding claim 13: Yoo teaches: wherein the AF device comprises a blockchain host performing the sending the first message (Yoo - [0096]: The participant node 20 may be registered in the blockchain network by sending a participant registration transaction to the registration smart contract module 221), sending the second message(Yoo - [0165]: the user node 30 may store the subscriber information and the service profile of the provider node 40 by creating the subscriber account. The user node 30 may subscribe to the event notification service) and receiving the at least one first response message (Yoo - [0088]: The blockchain front-end 210 may receive and process a service request for a smart contract through the blockchain interface, and may notify the participant or the service entity of the processing result for the service request).
Regarding claim 16: Yoo teaches: A method performed by a network exposure function, NEF, device, the method comprising:
receiving a first notification message notifying about registration of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is registered on a blockchain network by an application function, AF, device (Yoo - [0096]: The participant node 20 may be registered in the blockchain network by sending a participant registration transaction to the registration smart contract module 221 using the registration management function 112 of the participant decentralizing functional module 110);
receiving a second notification message notifying about subscription, by the AF device, to an event (Yoo - [0165]: the user node 30 may store the subscriber information and the service profile of the provider node 40 by creating the subscriber account. The user node 30 may subscribe to the event notification service for the participant registration status of the provider node through the blockchain front-end 210); and
sending a first response message registering a response notifying about the event (Yoo - [0088]: The blockchain front-end 210 may receive and process a service request for a smart contract through the blockchain interface, and may notify the participant or the service entity of the processing result for the service request).
Regarding claim 18: Yoo teaches: wherein the event is a Fifth Generation, 5G, monitoring event or a Sixth Generation, 6G, monitoring event (Yoo - [0068]: The network service may include a mobile communication network service implemented by software. Here, the mobile communication network service (such as 5G network service) may be implemented by software, so that efficient decentralization can be realized).
Regarding claim 19: Yoo teaches: wherein the 5G monitoring event is at least one of the following events:
User Equipment, UE, reachability;
Location Reporting;
Change of Subscription Permanent Identifier-Permanent Equipment Identifier, SUPI-PEI, association;
Roaming Status;
Number of UEs present in a geographic area; and
UE reachability for Short Message Service, SMS, delivery (Yoo - [0079]: When the end user 10 subscribes to a network of the existing communication service provider by using an identifier of the decentralized network 10, the end user 10 may pay a service charge through a blockchain. When the end user 10 does not subscribe to the network of the existing communication service provider, the end user 10 may use the network service of the existing communication service provider by considering the network service of the existing communication service provider as a roaming-type visited network service).
Regarding claim 26: Yoo teaches: wherein the sending the first response message triggers execution of the smart contract on the blockchain network (Yoo - [0088]: The blockchain front-end 210 may receive and process a service request for a smart contract through the blockchain interface, and may notify the participant or the service entity of the processing result for the service request).
Regarding claim 27: Yoo teaches: wherein the AF device and the NEF device are part of the blockchain network (Yoo - [0077]: At least one participant may participate as the platform development and administrator, and each participant may be connected to the independent decentralizing functional unit 100. [0076]: the application service provider may define an application function (AF) in the 5G network, and the application service provider may dynamically control the 5G network service through a network exposure function (NEF) using the AF).
Regarding claim 28: Yoo teaches: wherein the NEF device comprises a blockchain host performing the receiving the first notification, receiving the second notification and the sending (Yoo - [0088]: the blockchain front-end 210 may transmit the transaction received through the blockchain interfaces Fp and Fs to the blockchain node 220 … may notify the participant or the service entity of the processing result for the service request).
Regarding claims 33-35: Claims are directed to apparatus/device claims and do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims -13. Therefore, claims 33-35 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 1-3. Furthermore, Yoo in para. [0282], FIG. 25, discloses the computer system 2500 may include at least one of a processor 2510, a memory 25250.
Regarding claim 40: this claim defines a computer-readable medium claim that corresponds to method claims 1 and 16 and does not define beyond limitations of claims 1 and 16. Therefore, claim 40 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claims 1 and 16. Furthermore, Yoo in para. [0282], discloses a computer-readable medium.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (U.S. 2021/0342803) in view of GE (US 2020/0153838).
Regarding claim 17: Yoo doesn’t explicitly teach but GE teaches: further comprising sending a second response message registering a response responsive to receiving the first notification message (GE - [0159]: After the functional alias management entity receives the registration request message sent by the first client, when determining that the requester that requests to register the alias has the alias registration right, the functional alias management entity returns, to the first client, the registration response message including the identity of the requester, the name of the alias that is successfully registered, and the identity of the alias that is successfully registered).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yoo with GE so that a registering response message is sent in response to the request. The modification would have allowed the system to notify the requester about registration status.
Claim 20-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (U.S. 2021/0342803) in view of Wang (US 2023/0089060).
Regarding claim 20: Yoo teaches the smart contract comprises at least one of the following data:
a Service Capability Server/Application Server, SCS/AS, Identifier;
a Monitoring type;
an end-user identity;
maximum number of reports;
monitoring duration; and
a Mode option set to value PUSH (YOO - [0261]: The participants registered in the decentralized network 10 may be recognized by a participant identifier, which is a unique value throughout the system).
However, Yoo doesn’t explicitly teach but Wang teaches: wherein when the monitoring event is Location Reporting (Wang - [0102]: when performing UE event monitoring, the UE event monitoring is mainly used by the monitoring party to obtain event reports of a specified UE, such as location report)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yoo with Wang so that monitoring event is performed, and the event is location report. The modification would have allowed the system to obtain location report.
Regarding claim 21: Yoo teaches the smart contract comprises at least one of the following data:
a Service Capability Server/Application Server, SCS/AS, Identifier;
a Monitoring type;
an end-user identity;
maximum number of reports;
monitoring duration; and
a Mode option set to value PUSH (YOO - [0261]: The participants registered in the decentralized network 10 may be recognized by a participant identifier, which is a unique value throughout the system).
However, Yoo doesn’t explicitly teach but Wang teaches: wherein when the monitoring event is Location Reporting (Wang - [0102]: when performing UE event monitoring, the UE event monitoring is mainly used by the monitoring party to obtain event reports of a specified UE, such as location report).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yoo with Wang so that monitoring event is performed, and the event is location report. The modification would have allowed the system to obtain location report.
Regarding claim 22: Yoo teaches the first response message or the second response message comprises at least one of the following data:
time stamp;
user location information; and
MNO identifier (YOO - [0096]: Through the registration management function 112, an identifier that uniquely identifies the participant node 20 in the decentralized network 10 may be created, and the created identifier may be registered in the blockchain system 200 as the identifier of the participant node 20).
However, Yoo doesn’t explicitly teach but Wang teaches: when the event is Location Reporting (Wang - [0102]: when performing UE event monitoring, the UE event monitoring is mainly used by the monitoring party to obtain event reports of a specified UE, such as location report),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yoo with Wang so that monitoring event is performed, and the event is location report. The modification would have allowed the system to obtain location report.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (U.S. 2021/0342803) in view of DeLuca et al. (US 9894478, hereinafter DeLuca) and Krishnaswamy et al. (US 2023/0368202, hereinafter Krishnaswamy).
Regarding claim 123: Yoo doesn’t explicitly teach but DeLuca teaches: wherein when the monitoring event is Number of UEs present in a geographic area (DeLuca - [Col. 9, Line 32-35]: geo-fence software 114 can monitor the number of people attending the outdoor art expo by monitoring the number of mobile devices that enter, breach, or exit the geo-fence at location 302),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yoo with DeLuca so that number of devices in an area is monitored. The modification would have allowed the system to monitor number of devices in the location.
However, the combination of Yoo and DeLuca doesn’t explicitly teach but Krishnaswamy discloses the smart contract comprises at least one of the following data:
a Service Capability Server/Application Server, SCS/AS, Identifier;
a Monitoring type;
a monitoring area; and
a Mode option set to value PULL (Krishnaswamy - [0053]: The energy markets may be local such as micro-grid or may be aggregated across a larger geographical area and estimated such that the dynamic pricing may be agreed across various stakeholders that would be utilized in a smart contract for overall energy cost computation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yoo and DeLuca with Krishnaswamy so that geographical area is included in the smart contract. The modification would have allowed the system to utilize geographical area information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oh et al. US 7190969 B1- Method And System For Controlling Service To Multiple Mobile Stations Having A Common Subscriber Identifier
Bertin et al. US 12367319 B2- Encryption/decryption for data storage system with snapshot capability
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights