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 .
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharatia et al. (US 2020/0053828 A1) hereinafter “Bharatia” in view of Parulkar et al. (20210168203).
Regarding Claim 1, Bharatia discloses A method [¶0353: The disclosed methods] comprising: receiving, by a device (Fig 11. SMF 160), a protocol data unit session anchor (PSA) failure alarm (error indication report) ([¶0209] “In an example embodiment, the first UPF may send an error indication report when it determines failure at a peer network function.”) associated with a first PSA (a first UPF) at a first site with a first edge device [Abs: A SMF receives from a first UPF, first message(s) indicating a status of the first UPF. The SMF determines, based on the status, to transfer sessions for a group of wireless devices from the first UPF to a second UPF.];
[¶0136: In an example, if the SMF 160 may selects a new intermediate UPF 110 for the UPF session or may remove the old I-UPF 110-2, the SMF 160 may send N4 session modification request message to UPF session anchor, PSA UPF 110-3, providing the data forwarding indication and DL tunnel information from new intermediate UPF 110.] (The UPF session may be considered as PSA of the claim element)
[¶0066: The functionality support for edge computing may include local routing where the 5G core network may select a UPF 110 to route the user traffic to the local data network]; [¶0009: FIG. 7 is diagram for classification and marking traffic as per an aspect of an embodiment of the present disclosure.]; [¶0011: FIG. 10 and FIG. 11 are example call flow for service request procedure as per an aspect of an embodiment of the present disclosure.]; [¶0353: The features of various embodiments presented in this invention may be combined. One or many features (method or system) of one embodiment may be implemented in other embodiments.];
receiving, by the device (Figure 10 SMF), a PSA active alarm (Figure 10, N4 session establishment response message) associated with a second PSA (the new UPF 110) at a second site [¶0135: In an example, the new UPF 110 (intermediate) may send to SMF 160 an N4 session establishment response message.] (Specification ([¶0013-14]) explains that the ‘active alarm’ is for finding “operational status” of the PSA. It is described there as response to “heartbeat message”. Based on this, the ‘active alarm’ of the claim may be broadly interpreted as receiving the response to a request (it implies that device is active). Message sent by the UPF implies that the SMF receives the message.).
Furthermore, Bharatia discloses determining, by the device, a failover from the first PSA to the second PSA based on the PSA failure alarm and the PSA active alarm (See abstract e.g.);
generating, by the device, a notification identifying the optimal edge device and the second PSA [¶0088: In an example, the network, based on local policies, subscription changes and/or UE 100 mobility, may change the set of permitted network slice(s) to which the UE 100 is registered. In an example, the network may perform the change during a registration procedure or trigger a notification towards the UE 100 of the change of the supported network slices using an RM procedure (which may trigger a registration procedure). The network may provide the UE 100 with a new allowed NSSAI and tracking area list.];
and providing, by the device, the notification to a user equipment affected by the failover from the first PSA to the second PSA (Bharatia identifies the optimal edge device as discussed above.),
wherein the user equipment is configured to establish a new session with the optimal edge device in response to the notification [¶0133: In an example, the SMF 160 may send to the UPF 110 (e.g., new intermediate UPF 110) an N4 session establishment request. In an example, if the SMF 160 may select a new UPF 110 to act as intermediate UPF 110-2 for the UPF session, or if the SMF 160 may select to insert an intermediate UPF 110 for a UPF session which may not have an intermediate UPF 110-2, an N4 session establishment request message may be sent to the new UPF 110, providing packet detection, data forwarding, enforcement and reporting rules to be installed on the new intermediate UPF. The UPF session anchor addressing information (on N9) for this UPF session may be provided to the intermediate UPF 110-2 and paragraph 88, trigger a notification towards the UE 100 of the change …, which may trigger a registration procedure].
Bharatia does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the device, latency data identifying a latency between the first site and the second site; identifying, by the device and based on determining the failover, an optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data.
Parulkar, in analogous art, discloses receiving, by the device, latency data (latency) identifying a latency between the first site and the second site (e.g., paragraphs 81-88 and 92.); and identifying, by the device and based on determining the failover, an optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data (e.g., paragraphs 29, 81-88 and 92, new location for these resources that meet the threshold and to optimize for latency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Bharatia with Parulkar because it would provide for a lowest latency location as possible.
Regarding Claim 2, Parulkar discloses wherein the second site includes a second edge device and identifying the optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data comprises:
identifying the second edge device as the optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data (e.g., paragraphs 18, 40, 62-63 and 81-88)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Bharatia with Parulkar because it would provide for a lowest latency location as possible.
Regarding Claim 4, Parulkar discloses wherein each of the first edge device and the second edge device includes an edge application server (e.g., paragraphs 36 and 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Bharatia with Parulkar because it would provide for a lowest latency location as possible.
Regarding Claim 5, Bharatia discloses wherein a third site includes a second edge device [¶0239: The SMF may sends a seventh message to the third network function for modification of the existing targeted UPF sessions. This message comprises an uplink fully qualified tunnel endpoint identifiers received from the second UPF for the targeted UPF sessions.] (Similar process in claim 1 is repeated; another edge server is found with less latency and chosen for data routing.).
Parulkar discloses the latency data identifies another latency between the second site and the third site, and identifying the optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data comprises:
identifying the second edge device as the optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data indicating that the other latency is less than the latency (e.g., paragraph 81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Bharatia with Parulkar because it would provide for a lowest latency location as possible.
Regarding Claim 7, Parulkar discloses further comprising: updating, in a data structure, status information associated with the first PSA and the second PSA based on the PSA failure alarm and the PSA active alarm (e.g., paragraphs 28 and 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Bharatia with Parulkar because it would provide for seamless transition during failover.
Regarding Claim 8, it is rejected for similar reasons as claims 1 and 7. In addition Bharatia discloses a device [¶0342: a device], comprising: one or more processors [0342: one or more processors]
Regarding Claim 9, combination of Parulkar discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the user equipment affected by the failover from the first PSA to the second PSA to establish the new session with the optimal edge device (e.g., paragraph 94 “connections”, since the resources are moved, new connections will be made with the new location.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Bharatia with Parulkar because it would provide for seamless transition during failover.
Regarding Claim 10, Bharatia discloses wherein each of the first PSA and the second PSA is associated with a user plane function [¶0136: In an example, if the SMF 160 may selects a new intermediate UPF 110 for the UPF session or may remove the old I-UPF 110-2, the SMF 160 may send N4 session modification request message to UPF session anchor, PSA UPF 110-3, providing the data forwarding indication and DL tunnel information from new intermediate UPF 110.] (UPF may be considered as PSA of the claim element).
Regarding Claim 12, Parulkar discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify a plurality of user equipment as being affected by the failover from the first PSA to the second PSA (e.g., paragraph 82);
and provide the notification to the plurality of user equipment based on identifying the plurality of user equipment (e.g., paragraphs 76-77, “post-copy”)
wherein each of the plurality of user equipment is configured to establish a new session with the optimal edge device based on the (e.g., paragraph 94 “connections”, since the resources are moved, new connections will be made with the new location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Bharatia with Parulkar because it would provide for seamless transition during failover.
Regarding Claim 14 Parulkar discloses wherein the user equipment is subscribed to receiving the notification identifying the optimal edge device and the second PSA (e.g., paragraph 76, creation of the new domain and the reception of the post-copy when the new domain becomes active).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Bharatia with Parulkar because it would provide for seamless transition during failover.
Regarding Claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons as claims 1 and 8.
Regarding Claim 16, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 10.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 11, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Bharatia” in view of “Chou” ” and in further view of Parulkar et al. (20210168203) and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0225211 A1) hereinafter “Yu”.
Regarding Claim 3, combination of Bharatia and Chou discloses The method of claim 2.
Although Parulkar shows the use of multi-access edge computing site (e.g., paragraph 41) the combined system of Bharatia and Parulkar does not disclose wherein each of the first edge device and the second edge device is a multi-access edge computing device.
Yu, in analogous art, discloses wherein each of the first edge device and the second edge device is a multi-access edge computing device [¶0020: With reference to the first aspect, in some implementations of the first aspect, both the source transport layer proxy network element and the target transport layer proxy network element are user plane network elements, or both the source transport layer proxy network element and the target transport layer proxy network element are mobile edge computing (mobile edge computing, MEC) platform network elements.] (Fig. 2 shows a first and a second MEC device associated with a first and a second PSA, at different sites.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method of Bharatia and Chou as discussed in Claim 2 with the teachings of Yu, further including each of the first edge device and the second edge device is a multi-access edge computing device, to improve the user experience and allowing content, services and applications to be accelerated by increasing their responsiveness and providing services with low-latency [Yu – ¶0004].
Regarding Claim 6, combination of Bharatia and Parulkar discloses The method of claim 5.
Combination of Bharatia and Parulkar does not disclose wherein identifying the optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data comprises: identifying the first edge device as the optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data indicating that the latency is less than the other latency.
Yu, in analogous art, discloses wherein identifying the optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data comprises:
identifying the first edge device as the optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data indicating that the latency is less than the other latency [¶0138: To effectively meet requirements of a high bandwidth and a low latency required for rapid development of the mobile internet and the internet of things and reduce network load, mobile edge computing (mobile edge computing, MEC) is proposed; ¶0142: FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a PSA relocation scenario, As shown in FIG. 2, an AS 1 and an AS 2 may provide a same application service. When UE moves from a coverage area of a base station 1 to a coverage area of a base station 2, an air interface handover is first triggered. Before the handover, user plane data is transmitted through a path 1, and after the handover, user plane data is transmitted through a path 2. However, in this case, the UE accesses a user plane anchor PSA 1 through the base station 2, and a user plane transmission path is detoured. As a result, a path latency increases. For some low-latency services, for example, in a typical scenario with a 5-ms latency requirement, if an anchor is not switched from the PSA 1 to a PSA 2 in this case, that is, the user plane transmission path is switched from the path 2 to a path 3, and the path 2 is still used, a latency of the path 2 further increases when the UE continues to move, and the 5-ms latency requirement cannot be met. Therefore, the user plane transmission path needs to be switched from the path 2 to the path 3.] (Optimal edge device is selected based on latency requirement; this disclosure implies that path 3 has less latency than path 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of the method of Bharatia and Parulkar as discussed in Claim 5 above with the teachings of Yu, further including identifying the optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data comprises: identifying the first edge device as the optimal edge device for the second PSA based on the latency data indicating that the latency is less than the other latency, to reduce the packet transmission latency [Yu – ¶0141].
Regarding Claim 11, combination of Bharatia and Parulkar discloses The device of claim 8.
Combination of Bharatia and Parulkar does not disclose wherein the PSA failure alarm and the PSA active alarm are received from an operation support subsystem tool.
Yu, in analogous art, discloses wherein the PSA failure alarm and the PSA active alarm are received from an operation support subsystem tool [¶0132: The SMF is mainly responsible for all control plane functions in UE session management. The control plane functions include UPF selection and control, internet protocol (internet protocol, IP) address assignment and management, quality of service (quality of service, QoS) management of a session.] (Alarms are part of the control functions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of the system of Bharatia and Parulkar as discussed in Claim 8 above with the teachings of Yu, further including the PSA failure alarm and the PSA active alarm are received from an operation support subsystem tool, to switch the data transmission path from the first path to the second path [Yu – ¶0195].
Regarding Claim 13, combination of Bharatia and Parulkar discloses The device of claim 8.
Combination of Bharatia and Parulkar does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: listen for PSA failover events generated by an operation support subsystem tool; and receive the PSA failure alarm and the PSA active alarm from the operation support subsystem tool based on listening for the PSA failover events.
Yu, in analogous art, discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: listen for PSA failover events generated by an operation support subsystem tool [[¶0196] For example, if a service request message is an HTTP request (HTTP request) message, and a service response message is an HTTP response (HTTP response) message, the source transport layer proxy network element may determine, by parsing the HTTP response message and the HTTP response message, whether a complete HTTP response message sent by the first application server for the HTTP request is received.] (Listening or monitoring for alarms may be implied (depending on implementation), as discussed above in claim 11, implies listening for the message containing service response corresponding to failover events mentioned in claim element.);
and receive the PSA failure alarm and the PSA active alarm from the operation support subsystem tool based on listening for the PSA failover events [¶0144: The SSC mode 3 means that when an SMF determines to switch a user plane path, if a user plane path of an original PDU session is not an optimal path due to UE movement, the SMF requests the UE to reestablish a new PDU session to a same DN, and the SMF selects a new PSA for the reestablished PDU session and requests the UE to release the original PDU session when a timer expires or after a previous service flow has been transferred to the new PDU session.] (This discloses selection of new PSA and about timer and transfer of PDU session. Though not explicit disclosure of the claimed element, a timer is associated with listening/monitoring.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of the system of Bharatia and Parulkar as discussed in Claim 8 above with the teachings of Yu, further including the one or more processors are further configured to: listen for PSA failover events generated by an operation support subsystem tool; and receive the PSA failure alarm and the PSA active alarm from the operation support subsystem tool based on listening for the PSA failover events, to switch the data transmission path from the first path to the second path [Yu – ¶0195].
Regarding Claim 18, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Follansbee whose telephone number is 571-272-3964. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached on (571)272-1667. 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.
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights