DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 03/06/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-17 and 19 are amended.
No new claim is/are added.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-19 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Re: Objections:
Applicant’s Remarks (remark page 8), filed on 03/06/2026, regarding claim objection to claim 1 and 9 have been considered and the claims have been amended. The objections to claim 1 and 9 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Re: Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 8-12), filed on 03/06/2026, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
This Office Action is made Final.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (US 20220174585 A1), hereinafter “Ge”, in view of Yao et al. (US 20200044919 A1), hereinafter “Yao”, in view of Qaisrani et al. (US 20210307018 A1), hereinafter “Qaisrani”, and in view of Mehta et al. (“Distributed Cost-Optimized Placement for Latency-Critical Applications in Heterogeneous Environments”), hereinafter “Mehta”.
Per claim 1 and 9:
Regarding claim 9, Ge teaches ‘A provider of an edge computing management service in a wireless communication system’ (Ge: [FIG.3]: block 301: “Edge network configuration server”; [0029]: “a network management server in an edge network”; [0134]: “The edge network may also be referred to as an edge computing network”, [0037]: “management network element is a network element configured to deploy the application instance, or an edge enabler server”; an edge computing management service configuration server for edge network provision and deployment); ‘the provider comprising: a transceiver’ (Ge: [0070]: “transceiver”); ‘at least one processor’ (Ge: [0070]: “processor”); ‘coupled to the transceiver’ (this is implied);
‘wherein the at least one processor configured to:
receive a request for an edge application server (EAS) deployment to create an EAS instance associated with an EASFunction class’ (Ge: [FIG.1C]; [FIG.1D]; [FIG.2]: step 205: “First device” to “First Sever”: “Send identification information of the application and location information of the first device”; [0135]: “The first server 101 may be an edge network configuration server”; edge network configuration server receives request from first device (a consumer of “edge network configuration server”) about an edge application). However, Ge fails to expressly teach to create an EAS instance associated with an EASFunction class;
‘identify, based on the request for the EAS deployment, plurality of requirements for the EAS instance including a geo-location, a latency and a cost’ (Ge: [0062]: “the information about the application instance is applicable to a requirement of a specific scenario”; [0032]: “the first server may further select, for the first device based on a requirement of the first device, an application instance that satisfies the requirement of the first device”; identify the requirements for the (edge) application instance; [0003]: “a delay-sensitive service”; [0007]: “ a service delay can be reduced”; [0217]: “the ECS may select, for the user equipment by obtaining the area information of the EES and the location information of the user equipment, a target EES that matches the location of the user equipment”; select an EDN based on requirements for the edge application instance based on the location of UE or latency-sensitive service). However, Ge fails to expressly teach a cost;
‘identify, based on the request for the EAS deployment, one or more requirements for the EAS instance’ (Ge: [0062]: “the information about the application instance is applicable to a requirement of a specific scenario”; [0032]: “the first server may further select, for the first device based on a requirement of the first device, an application instance that satisfies the requirement of the first device”; identify the requirements for the (edge) application instance);
‘select an edge data network (EDN) based on grouping the at least two of the plurality of requirements for the EAS instance as the single selection criteria’ (Ge: [FIG.1D]: “First edge network”, “Second edge network”, “First Server”; [0167]: “the first server may respectively receive the information about the first instance of the application and the information about the second instance of the application from the second server and the third server … the first server sends the information about the application instances to another device (for example, the first device”; [0127]: “select an EDN”; [0003]: “a delay-sensitive service”; [0007]: “ a service delay can be reduced”; [0039]: “The second server obtains information about a first instance of an application … the first information is used to indicate a location of the first instance”; [0217]: “the ECS may select, for the user equipment by obtaining the area information of the EES and the location information of the user equipment, a target EES that matches the location of the user equipment”; select an EDN based on requirements for the edge application instance based on the location of UE or latency-sensitive service). However, Ge fails to expressly teach ‘based on grouping the at least two of the plurality of requirements for the EAS instance as the single selection criteria’;
‘select an edge enabler server (EES) in the selected EDN based on the request for the EAS deployment’ (Ge: [0217]: “the ECS may select, for the user equipment by obtaining the area information of the EES and the location information of the user equipment, a target EES that matches the location of the user equipment or is closest to the user equipment”; [FIG.1D]: “First edge network”, “Second server”, “Second edge network”, “Third Server”; [0029]: “the second server or the third server is any one of the following: an edge enabler server”; [FIG.2]: step 206: “Send an IP address of a third instance”; select the third server (an EES) in the selected EDN (Second edge network));
‘create a managed object instance (MOI) for the EAS function class’ (Ge: [0188]: “enabler capabilities for an application instance, and can better support deployment of an application in MEC”). However, Ge fails to expressly teach create a managed object instance (MOI).
However, Yao in the same field of endeavor teaches create managed object instance (MOI) based on managed object class (Yao: [Table 2]: “managedObjectClass”, “managedObjectInstance” (MOI); [FIG.3a]: step 332: “Create and configure MOI(s)”; [0064]: “an MOI of a managed function”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao’s teaching with that of Ge for edge computing management configuration server to receive a request for an edge application server (EAS) deployment to create an EAS instance associated with an EASFunction class and create a managed object instance (MOI) for the EAS function class in order to support lifecycle management to instantiate a VNF (Yao: [0018]: “lifecycle management (“LCM”) parameter modeling for virtual network functions (“VNFs”). In some embodiments, LCM-related parameters may be conveyed through a MO creation process that triggers instantiation of a VNF”).
Combination of Ge and Yao does not expressly teach ‘a cost’, ‘grouping at least two of the plurality of requirements for the EAS instance as a single selection criteria for selecting an edge data network (EDN) including: combining the latency and the cost as a first single selection criteria influencing selection of the EDN as in what latency can be assured in what cost, and combining the geo-location and the latency as a second selection criteria influencing selection of the EDN in at what location a requested latency can be provided depending on a target geographical area’, and ‘based on grouping the at least two of the plurality of requirements for the EAS instance as the single selection criteria’.
However, Qaisrani in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘a cost’ (Qaisrani: [0092]: “cost”), a table with EAS servers associated with Latency, Location, and Cost such as GPU, CPU and Bandwidth (Qaisrani: [FIG.9]: {“Server” : “Average latency” : “Location Area”, “Free GPU”, “Free GPU”, “Bandwidth”} -> {“EAS3” : ‘20” : “LA”, “5”, “5”, “100GB”}), and criteria related to geographic location, latency, and cost such as GPU/CPU/Bandwidth, for selecting edge server (Qaisrani: [0114]: “the one or more criteria for the edge compute … graphics processing unit (GPU) capability, a central processing unit (CPU) capability, an amount of memory, a geographic location … an amount of bandwidth … a latency budget associated with the edge compute”; [Abstract]: “methods for performing efficient discovery of edge computing servers … The edge discovery service may select one or more edge application servers for the edge compute”).
First, it is a well-known SQL method to query tables with combination of keys and so it would be an implementation choice for Qaisrani’s criteria for selecting edge server to select server based on combination of latency and cost, and then based on combination of location and latency, for example, to select {“Server”, “Average latency”, “Location Area”} from Qaisrani’s table based on combination of latency and cost as temp_table, and then further to select a final server from the temp_table based on combination of location and latency, in another word, to identify, based on the request for the EAS deployment, plurality of requirements for the EAS instance including a geo-location, a latency and a cost, grouping at least two of the plurality of requirements for the EAS instance as a single selection criteria for selecting an edge data network (EDN) including: combining the latency and the cost as a first single selection criteria influencing selection of the EDN as in what latency can be assured in what cost, and combining the geo-location and the latency as a second selection criteria influencing selection of the EDN in at what location a requested latency can be provided depending on a target geographical area, select an edge data network (EDN) based on grouping the at least two of the plurality of requirements for the EAS instance as the single selection criteria.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Qaisrani’s teaching with that of combination of Ge and Yao in order to perform efficient discover of edge computing servers (Qaisrani: [Abstract]: “methods for performing efficient discovery of edge computing servers … The edge discovery service may select one or more edge application servers for the edge compute”).
Moreover, Mehta in the same field of endeavor teaches place applications to optimize cost for latency-critical application with consideration of location and latency (Mehta: [Title]: “Distributed Cost-Optimized Placement for Latency-Critical Applications in Heterogeneous Environments”; [Page 122, Col 1]: “MECs and 5G could thus enable cost-optimal placement for IoT applications that require low network latency”; [Page 126, Col 1]: “
PNG
media_image1.png
83
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
… where βj is the queuing latency over edge
PNG
media_image2.png
19
24
media_image2.png
Greyscale
between the IoT device and the prospective runtime
PNG
media_image3.png
19
20
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at the location
PNG
media_image4.png
21
20
media_image4.png
Greyscale
… minimizes cost for each application while ensuring that performance can be met”; [Algorithm 1]; select server with consideration of both combination of Cost and Location and combination of Location and Latency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine to combine Mehta’s teaching with that of combination of Ge, Yao and Qaisrani to select edge server by grouping the requirements as a single selection criteria which including combining latency and cost and combining geo location and latency in order to achieve cost-optimized placement for latency-critical applications (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the ECMSP of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Per claim 2 and 10:
Regarding claim 10, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the provider of claim 9 (discussed above).
Combination of Ge and Yao teaches ‘transmit a response comprising a parameter which notifies a consumer of the edge computing management service that the MOI has been created as a response to the EAS deployment request’ (Ge: [FIG.2]: step 206: “First Server” to “First Device”: “Send an IP address of a third instance”; [0135]: “The first server 101 may be an edge network configuration server”; [0114]: “The first device 103 may be a terminal device, may be a server, or may be another device that needs to obtain the information about the application from the first server”; where “First server” is ECMSP (“edge network configuration server”) and “First device” is an consumer of ECMSP (“First sever”), i.e. an ECMSC. Yao: [FIG.3a]: step 336: “create MO response”; step 340: “Notification of MOI(s) creation”; transmit a response with a parameter to notify the MOI creation as response to the EAS deployment request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao’s teaching of MOI creation with that of Ge in order to support lifecycle management to instantiate a VNF (Yao: [0018]: “lifecycle management (“LCM”) parameter modeling for virtual network functions (“VNFs”). In some embodiments, LCM-related parameters may be conveyed through a MO creation process that triggers instantiation of a VNF”).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the method implemented by the provider of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Per claim 3 and 11:
Regarding claim 11, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the provider of claim 9 (discussed above).
Ge teaches ‘a service area’ (Ge: [0352]: “service area information”; requirements may include a service area).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the method implemented by the provider of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Per claim 6 and 14:
Regarding claim 14, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the provider of claim 9 (discussed above).
Combination of Ge and Yao teaches ‘deriving the plurality of requirements for a Virtual Network Function (VNF) instance upon determining presence of a virtualized part in the EAS instance to be created’ (Ge: [0032]: “the first server may further select, for the first device based on a requirement of the first device, an application instance that satisfies the requirement of the first device”; [0026]: “the information about the application instance is applicable to a requirement of a specific scenario”. Yao: [0028]: “the VNF package may include, for example, a VNFD, software images, manifest files”; [FIG.3a]: step 332: “Create and configure MOI(s)”; [0024]: “the NFV-MANO system 104 may provide management and orchestration operations to facilitate provision of virtualized network functions”; [0043]: “The flavour ID may be an identifier of a deployment flavour (“DF”) of the VNF instance. The DF may include a plurality of attributes that define a specific deployment … affinity or anti-affinity relationship”. May derive the requirements for VNF instance upon determining presence of a virtualized part in the EAS instance to be created).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao’s teaching of VNF MANO with that of Ge in order to support configuration and lifecycle management of NFV infrastructure (Yao: [0004]: “NFV, management and orchestration, MANO, describes a framework for providing virtualized network functions and related operations such as configuring the virtualized network functions and the corresponding infrastructure”; [Abstract]: “lifecycle management parameter modeling for virtual network functions”).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the method implemented by the provider of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Regarding claim 7, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Ge and Yao teaches ‘configuring the MOI created corresponding to the request with configuration information’ (Ge: [0160]: “the first server may provide configuration information of the corresponding edge networks”. Yao: [FIG.3a]: step 332: “Create and configure MOI(s)”; configure MOI created based on configuration information of the request);
‘wherein the configuration information is provided in the request for the EAS deployment and contained within the EAS instance in the MOI’ (Ge: [FIG.2]: step 205: “Send identification information of the application and location information of the first device”, request from “first device” about edge application. Yao: [FIG.3a]: step 332: “Create and configure MOI(s)”. MOI of EAS instance would contain configuration information of the request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao’s teaching of MOI creation with that of Ge in order to support lifecycle management to instantiate a VNF (Yao: [0018]: “lifecycle management (“LCM”) parameter modeling for virtual network functions (“VNFs”). In some embodiments, LCM-related parameters may be conveyed through a MO creation process that triggers instantiation of a VNF”).
Regarding claim 17, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the provider of claim 1.
Ge does not expressly teach, but Yao teaches ‘virtual resource (VR) requirements’ (Yao: [FIG.1]: “NFVI Resources”, “NFV Instances”; [0026]: “virtualized resources”; [0043]: “a VNF with specific requirements”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao’s teaching with that of Ge for the one or more requirements to include virtual resource (VR) requirements in order to support lifecycle management to instantiate a VNF (Yao: [0018]: “lifecycle management (“LCM”) parameter modeling for virtual network functions (“VNFs”). In some embodiments, LCM-related parameters may be conveyed through a MO creation process that triggers instantiation of a VNF”).
Regarding claim 18, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the provider of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Ge and Yao teaches ‘wherein MOI comprises the EAS instance created in the EDN selected based on the one or more requirements for the EAS instance’ (Ge: [FIG.1D]: “First edge network”, “Second edge network”, “First Server”; [0167]: “the first server may respectively receive the information about the first instance of the application and the information about the second instance of the application from the second server and the third server … the first server sends the information about the application instances to another device (for example, the first device”; [0127]: “select an EDN”; [0217]: “the ECS may select, for the user equipment by obtaining the area information of the EES and the location information of the user equipment, a target EES that matches the location of the user equipment or is closest to the user equipment”. Yao: [Table 2]: “managedObjectClass”, “managedObjectInstance” (MOI); [FIG.3a]: step 332: “Create and configure MOI(s)”; [0064]: “an MOI of a managed function”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao’s teaching of MOI creation with that of Ge in order to support lifecycle management to instantiate a VNF (Yao: [0018]: “lifecycle management (“LCM”) parameter modeling for virtual network functions (“VNFs”). In some embodiments, LCM-related parameters may be conveyed through a MO creation process that triggers instantiation of a VNF”).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta, in view of Udupi et al. (US 20160359668 A1), hereinafter “Udupi”.
Per claim 5 and 13:
Regarding claim 13, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the provider of claim 12 (discussed above).
Ge teaches ‘combine an affinity/anti-affinity and cost as a third single selection criteria influencing selection of the EDN as in what cost is incurred to satisfy the affinity/anti- affinity with a particular existing edge application’ (Ge: [FIG.1D]: “First edge network”, “First instance server of the application”, “Second edge network”, “Second instance server of an application”; [0032]: “the first server may further select, for the first device based on a requirement of the first device, an application instance that satisfies the requirement of the first device”; ECMSP (“first server”) may selected the EDN based on an individual requirement or grouping of the one or more requirements as single selection criteria). However, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta does not expressly teach ‘combine an affinity/anti-affinity and cost as a third single selection criteria’.
However, Udupi in the same field of endeavor teaches affinity-related cost optimization for affinity with least cost (Udupi: [0006]: “FIG. 3 shows a variable matrix, sets of variables, and affinity-related costs for a constraints optimization problem”; [0030]: “strict affinity, strict anti-affinity, soft affinity with least cost”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Udupi’s teaching with that of combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta to combine an affinity/anti-affinity and cost as a third single selection criteria influencing selection of the EDN as in what cost is incurred to satisfy the affinity/anti- affinity with a particular existing edge application in order to optimize virtual machine placement by jointly considering affinity/anti-affinity and cost (Udupi: [Abstract]: “The method involves defining a variable matrix (wherein each entry of the variable matrix indicate whether a particular virtual machine is to be placed on a particular host server”; [0030]: “affinity with least cost”).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the method implemented by the provider of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Claims 8, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta, in view of Mahmud et al. (“Latency-Aware Application Module Management for Fog Computing Environments”), hereinafter “Mahmud”.
Regarding claim 8, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Ge and Yao teaches ‘wherein the plurality of requirements are prioritized for selecting one or more EDNs’ (Ge: [FIG.1D]: “First edge network”, “Second edge network”; [FIG.2]: step 205: “Send identification information of the application and location information of the first device”; First server may select one or more EDNs based on application and the location of first device). However, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta fails to expressly teach prioritized for selecting;
‘wherein the plurality of requirements are contained within the EAS instance in the MOI’ (Ge: [0032]: “the first server may further select, for the first device based on a requirement of the first device, an application instance that satisfies the requirement of the first device”; Yao: [FIG.3a]: step 332: “Create and configure MOI(s)”; [0043]: “The flavour ID may be an identifier of a deployment flavour (“DF”) of the VNF instance. The DF may include a plurality of attributes that define a specific deployment version of the VNF”. MOI of EAS instance would contain requirements);
‘wherein the prioritized plurality of requirements for the EDN selection’ (Ge: [FIG.1D]: “First edge network”, “Second edge network”; [FIG.2]: step 205: “Send identification information of the application and location information of the first device”, requirements for EDN selection). However, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta fails to expressly teach prioritized plurality of requirements;
‘a mandatory condition of full compliance in respect of high prioritized requirements’ (Yao: [0071]: “attributes whose support qualifier is mandatory (“M”)”, mandatory for full compliance). However, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta fails to expressly teach in respect of high prioritized requirements;
‘a condition of optional compliance in respect of less prioritized requirements, based on an allowed deviation’ (Yao: [0071]: “attributes whose support qualifier is optional (“O”)”, may be optional compliance based on the allowed deviation). However, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta fails to expressly teach in respect of less prioritized requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao’s teaching of MOI creation with that of Ge in order to support lifecycle management to instantiate a VNF (Yao: [0018]: “lifecycle management (“LCM”) parameter modeling for virtual network functions (“VNFs”). In some embodiments, LCM-related parameters may be conveyed through a MO creation process that triggers instantiation of a VNF”).
However, Mahmud in the same field of endeavor teaches application placement policy for edge computing to prioritize requirements for edge network selection based on the computation cost and communication time (Mahmud: [Page 9-10]: “an efficient module placement policy is required that can prioritize applications to place them in closer proximity of the data source, meeting necessary latency-related issues. More precisely, the policy should identify which applications (modules) should be placed at the lower fog level and which are required to move toward the upper level”; [Page 3]: “It prioritizes interdependent tasks for scheduling to the multiclouds based on the computation cost and communication time”; [Page 2]: “fog computing extends cloud-based facilities to the edge network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mahmud’s teaching with that of combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta to support prioritization of requirements for selecting the one or more EDNs, a mandatory condition of full compliance in respect of high prioritized requirements; and a condition of optional compliance in respect of less prioritized requirements, based on an allowed deviation in order to efficiently place application based on computation cost and communication time (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 15, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the provider of claim 9 (discussed above).
Combination of Ge and Yao teaches ‘configure the MOI created corresponding to the request with configuration information’ (Ge: [0160]: “the first server may provide configuration information of the corresponding edge networks”. Yao: [FIG.3a]: step 332: “Create and configure MOI(s)”. May configure MOI created based on configuration information of the request);
‘wherein the configuration information is provided in EAS deployment request and contained within the EAS instance in the MOI’ (Ge: [FIG.2]: step 205: “Send identification information of the application and location information of the first device”, request from “first device” about edge application. Yao: [FIG.3a]: step 332: “Create and configure MOI(s)”. MOI of EAS instance would contain configuration information of the request);
‘wherein the plurality of requirements are prioritized for selecting one or more EDNs’ (Ge: [FIG.1D]: “First edge network”, “Second edge network”; [FIG.2]: step 205: “Send identification information of the application and location information of the first device”; First server may select one or more EDNs based on application and the location of first device). However, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta fails to expressly teach prioritized for selecting;
‘wherein the plurality of requirements are contained within the EAS instance in the MOI’ (Ge: [0032]: “the first server may further select, for the first device based on a requirement of the first device, an application instance that satisfies the requirement of the first device”; Yao: [FIG.3a]: step 332: “Create and configure MOI(s)”; [0043]: “The flavour ID may be an identifier of a deployment flavour (“DF”) of the VNF instance. The DF may include a plurality of attributes that define a specific deployment version of the VNF”. MOI of EAS instance would contain requirements);
‘wherein the prioritized plurality of requirements for the EDN selection’ (Ge: [FIG.1D]: “First edge network”, “Second edge network”; [FIG.2]: step 205: “Send identification information of the application and location information of the first device”, requirements for EDN selection). However, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta fails to expressly teach prioritized plurality of requirements;
‘a mandatory condition of full compliance in respect of high prioritized requirements’ (Yao: [0071]: “attributes whose support qualifier is mandatory (“M”)”, mandatory for full compliance). However, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta fails to expressly teach in respect of high prioritized requirements;
‘a condition of optional compliance in respect of less prioritized requirements, based on an allowed deviation’ (Yao: [0071]: “attributes whose support qualifier is optional (“O”)”, may be optional compliance based on the allowed deviation). However, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta fails to expressly teach in respect of less prioritized requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yao’s teaching of MOI creation with that of Ge in order to support lifecycle management to instantiate a VNF (Yao: [0018]: “lifecycle management (“LCM”) parameter modeling for virtual network functions (“VNFs”). In some embodiments, LCM-related parameters may be conveyed through a MO creation process that triggers instantiation of a VNF”).
However, Mahmud in the same field of endeavor teaches application placement policy for edge computing to prioritize requirements for edge network selection based on the computation cost and communication time (Mahmud: [Page 9-10]: “an efficient module placement policy is required that can prioritize applications to place them in closer proximity of the data source, meeting necessary latency-related issues. More precisely, the policy should identify which applications (modules) should be placed at the lower fog level and which are required to move toward the upper level”; [Page 3]: “It prioritizes interdependent tasks for scheduling to the multiclouds based on the computation cost and communication time”; [Page 2]: “fog computing extends cloud-based facilities to the edge network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mahmud’s teaching with that of combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta to support prioritization of requirements for selecting the one or more EDNs, a mandatory condition of full compliance in respect of high prioritized requirements, and a condition of optional compliance in respect of less prioritized requirements, based on an allowed deviation in order to efficiently place application based on computation cost and communication time (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 18, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the provider of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta does not expressly teach, but Mahmud teaches ‘wherein the single selection criteria further includes a latency and a cost, wherein the latency and the cost are combined as one selection criteria influencing selection to determine an amount of the latency at a certain cost’ (Mahmud: [Page 3]: “The placement cost is calculated centrally considering service access latency”; [Page 4]: “The cost function can include resource consumption, service access latency”; [Page 3]: “It prioritizes interdependent tasks for scheduling to the multiclouds based on the computation cost and communication time”; [Page 9-10]: “an efficient module placement policy is required”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mahmud’s teaching with that of combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta in order to efficiently place application based on computation cost and communication time (see reference quotes in element above).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta, in view of Ruan et al. (US 20210099848 A1), hereinafter “Ruan”.
Regarding claim 16, combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta teaches the provider of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta does not teach, but Ruan in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘a service continuity’ (Ruan: [0002]: “Various embodiments of the present application generally relate to the field of wireless communications, and in particular to Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) technologies for supporting vehicle-to-everything (V2X) data session and service continuity”; [FIG.4]; [0039]: “the MSP edge server 136A (or the CP module 137A) hands over the UE context to MSP edge server 136B (or the CP module 137B) for session and service continuity”; [0025]: “the MSP center server 150 is incorporated with the V2X sessions and service continuity technology … In 5G systems, session and service continuity (SSC) is supported by SSC mode. With SSC mode, the network preserves a connectivity service provided to a UE 121, which is an access network PDU session continuity guarantee mechanism”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ruan’s teaching with that of combination of Ge, Yao, Qaisrani and Mehta for the one or more requirements to include a service continuity in order to support 5G access network PDU session continuity (see reference quotes in element above).
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 GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights