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 .
Claims 1-19, 21, 23, and 25 are pending.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 2-3, Applicant explains the intended claimed invention. While the clarification is appreciated for purpose of understanding the inventive concept, the examiner respectfully notes that per MPEP 2111 - “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applicant, in general, alleges reference Samsung does not discloses “an edge enabler server, comprising: receiving a first request from an edge application server, wherein the first request comprises at least one identifier of at least one user equipment and an information element for indicating to the edge enabling server a request for delegation of user plane path management related to the at least one user equipment;”
Applicant argues “disclosure of the EES subscribing or not, in response to UP path management event API request, with 3GPP CN for UP path management event notifications as such does not imply the EES taking over from the EAS full or partial responsibility for continuous tracking of UE's UP path change (and potential further resulting interaction with CN), in response to delegation of an according responsibility (in contrast to merely, unconditionally, forwarding any notifications to the EAS)”.
Applicant further asserts:
“Specifically, Samsung fails to disclose no. 3 UP path management event API response being conditional, i.e., upon delegation, no such UP path management event API response would occur.
For example, as discussed above, "full or partial delegation of responsibility for UP path management" may include taking over the responsibility of provisioning subsequent traffic routing influence: For example, the EES may take care of the traffic routing influence to a network such as the 3GPP CN upon reception of the UP path change notification from the network such as 3GPP CN. For example, Samsun lacks disclosure of the EES triggering ACR” – page 4 per Remarks.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments.
Per the reminder above, reading limitations in the Specification into the claims is not permissible under MPEP 2111.
The claim language merely reads “receiving a first request from an edge application server, wherein the first request comprises at least one identifier of at least one user equipment and an information element for indicating to the edge enabling server a request for delegation of user plane path management related to the at least one user equipment;”.
At nowhere in the claims that require the delegation of user plane path management is limited to the very specific narrow readings of applicant (namely the requirements of taking over the responsibility of provisioning subsequent traffic routing influence: For example, the EES may take care of the traffic routing influence to a network such as the 3GPP CN upon reception of the UP path change notification from the network such as 3GPP CN. For example, Samsun lacks disclosure of the EES triggering ACR.
In fact, reference Samsung does disclose various instances of user plane path managements in Page 3, step 1 and 2, at least some examples of delegation of user path management event.
The examiner also points out the uncanny similarity of Applicant’s Drawings (Fig. 4-5, 8) with Samsung’s figures 8.6.3.2-1 and 8.6.4.3.2.2 . In particular, Applicant’s Fig. 4, 5, 8 -9 with descriptions in the Specification are mere paraphrased or appear verbatim in many instances with Samsung’s disclosure. It raises serious question on the alleged distinction for the inventive concept as claimed.
In conclusion, the arguments are not persuasive because it improperly addresses limitations that are not presented in the claim. As mentioned above, the Court has held that a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-15, 21, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over NPL(S6-201050) – Clarification on UP path management event API (3GPP TSG-SA WG6 Meeting #38 (July 2020) by Samsung.
As to claim 1:
Samsung discloses:
A method performed by an edge enabler server, comprising: receiving a first request from an edge application server (Step 01), wherein the first request comprises at least one identifier of at least one user equipment and an information element for indicating to the edge enabling server a request for delegation of user plane path management related to the at least one user equipment; (See page 2, in the Fig. 8.6.3.2.-1 and associated text below, at Edge Enabler, receiving a request from EAS, the request having UE identifier and a request content requesting for user plane path management event subscribe operation for tracking UE’s user plane path change continuously, may further comprise Subscription Type and indication of EAS acknowledgment)
and sending a first response to the edge application server. (Step 03, a response is sent to the EAS from the Edge Enabler Server)
As to claim 2:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 1, further comprising: checking whether the edge application server is authorized for the delegation of user plane path management; when the edge application server is authorized for the delegation of user plane path management, performing the delegation of user plane path management; and when the edge application server is not authorized for the delegation of user plane path management, rejecting the delegation of user plane path management. (See page 2, section 2. Through 3., wherein the Edge Enabler Server check if the EAS is authorized for the operation. If EAS is authorized the Edge Enabler Server responds with a subscription information for the request and performs the tracking as requested, and if not, sending rejection with cause information)
As to claim 3:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 1, further comprising: checking if there exists a subscription with a core network for user plane path management event notifications corresponding to the at least one user equipment; when the subscription with the core network does not exist, subscribing with the core network for the user plane path management event notifications of the at least one user equipment; and when the subscription with the core network exists, using locally cached user plane path management event notification information of the at least one user equipment. (See page 2, “if a subscription with 3GPP core network does not exist, then the Edge Enabler Server subscribes with the 3GPP core network (PCF, NEF or SCEF+NEF) for the user plane path management event notifications of the UE as described in 3GPP TS 23.501 [2] and 3GPP TS 23.502 [3]. If the Edge Application Server provides Subscription Type and/or Indication of EES Acknowledgement, the Edge Enabler Server include the type of subscription the indication of “AF acknowledgement to be expected” as information on AF subscription to corresponding SMF events within the AF Request. If the Edge Application Server does not provide the above information, the Edge Enabler Server generates information on AF subscription based on the local configuration and/or EAS profile; if a subscription with 3GPP core network exists, then the Edge Enabler Server uses the locally cached user plane path management event notification information of the UE to respond to the Edge Application Server.
The Edge Enabler Server stores the subscription related to the Edge Application Server.
If the request is unsubscribe, the Edge Enabler Server checks if the Edge Application Server is authorized for this operation and if authorized removes the subscription related to the Edge Application Server.”)
As to claim 4:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 1, further comprising: detecting the user plane path management event of the at least one user equipment. (Page 3, “The Edge Enabler Server detects the user plane path management event of the UE (e.g. receiving User plane path management event notification for the UE from the 3GPP core network). The Edge Enabler Server may cache the detected User plane path management event notification locally with timestamp as the latest information of the UE”)
As to claim 7:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 1, further comprising: sending information regarding the target edge application server to the edge application server and/or the at least one user equipment. (See page 2, Step 3, “If Edge Application Server is not authorized, the Edge Enabler Server provides a rejection response with cause information”, with cause information read as the information regarding the target edge application server)
As to claim 9:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the first request is a user plane path management event application programming interface (API) subscribe request. (See page 2, user plane path management event application programming interface (API) subscribe request as apparent in step 1)
As to claim 10:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second request from the edge application server, wherein the second request comprises an indication for cancelling the delegation of user plane path management related to one or more user equipments; and sending a second response to the edge application server. (See Page 2, step 1, and 3, in case the EAS to send a user plane path management event unsubscribe operation, the request include an indication for acknowledgement. The EES responds with removing the subscription and provides an ACK)
As to claim 11:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 10, further comprising: checking whether the edge application server is authorized for cancelling the delegation of user plane path management related to one or more user equipments; when the edge application server is authorized for cancelling the delegation of user plane path management related to one or more user equipments, cancelling the delegation of user plane path management related to one or more user equipments; (Page 2, “If the request is unsubscribe, the Edge Enabler Server checks if the Edge Application Server is authorized for this operation and if authorized removes the subscription related to the Edge Application Server”) and when the edge application server is not authorized for the delegation of user plane path management related to one or more user equipments, rejecting the cancelling of the delegation of user plane path management related to one or more user equipments. (page 2, step 3, for both subscribe/unsubscribe, If Edge Application Server is not authorized, the Edge Enabler Server provides a rejection response with cause information)
As to claim 12:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 10, wherein the second request is a user plane path management event application programming interface (API) unsubscribe request. (Fig. 8.6.3.2-1 and associated texts, as apparent, cover both subscribe/unsubscribe operations, with both requests being User plane path management event API subscribe or Unsubscribe requests)
As to claim 13:
Samsung discloses:
A method performed by an edge application server (Fig.8.6.3.2-1 and associated text), comprising: sending a first request to an edge enabler server (Step 01), wherein the first request comprises at least one identifier of the at least one user equipment and an information element for indicating to the edge enabling server a request for delegation of user plane path management related to the at least one user equipment; (See page 2, in the Fig. 8.6.3.2.-1 and associated text below, at Edge Enabler, sending a request from EAS, the request having UE identifier and a request content requesting for user plane path management event subscribe operation for tracking UE’s user plane path change continuously, may further comprise Subscription Type and indication of EAS acknowledgment)
and receiving a first response from the edge enabler server. (Step 03, a response is sent to the EAS from the Edge Enabler Server)
As to claim 14:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 13, wherein the delegation of user plane path management comprises: a delegation of checking if there exists a subscription with a core network for user plane path management event notifications corresponding to the at least one user equipment; when the subscription with the core network does not exist, a delegation of subscribing with the core network for the user plane path management event notifications of the at least one user equipment; and when the subscription with the core network exists, a delegation of using locally cached user plane path management event notification information of the at least one user equipment. . (See page 2, “if a subscription with 3GPP core network does not exist, then the Edge Enabler Server subscribes with the 3GPP core network (PCF, NEF or SCEF+NEF) for the user plane path management event notifications of the UE as described in 3GPP TS 23.501 [2] and 3GPP TS 23.502 [3]. If the Edge Application Server provides Subscription Type and/or Indication of EES Acknowledgement, the Edge Enabler Server include the type of subscription the indication of “AF acknowledgement to be expected” as information on AF subscription to corresponding SMF events within the AF Request. If the Edge Application Server does not provide the above information, the Edge Enabler Server generates information on AF subscription based on the local configuration and/or EAS profile; if a subscription with 3GPP core network exists, then the Edge Enabler Server uses the locally cached user plane path management event notification information of the UE to respond to the Edge Application Server.
The Edge Enabler Server stores the subscription related to the Edge Application Server.
If the request is unsubscribe, the Edge Enabler Server checks if the Edge Application Server is authorized for this operation and if authorized removes the subscription related to the Edge Application Server.”)
As to claim 15:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 14, wherein the delegation of user plane path management further comprises: a delegation of detecting the user plane path management event of the at least one user equipment. (Page 3, “The Edge Enabler Server detects the user plane path management event of the UE (e.g. receiving User plane path management event notification for the UE from the 3GPP core network). The Edge Enabler Server may cache the detected User plane path management event notification locally with timestamp as the latest information of the UE”)
As to claim 21:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 13, Samsung further comprising: sending a second request to the edge enabler server, wherein the second request comprises an indication for cancelling the delegation of user plane path management related to one or more user equipments; (Page 2, “If the request is unsubscribe, the Edge Enabler Server checks if the Edge Application Server is authorized for this operation and if authorized removes the subscription related to the Edge Application Server”, Fig. 8.6.3.2-1 and associated texts, as apparent, cover both subscribe/unsubscribe operations, with both requests being User plane path management event API subscribe or Unsubscribe requests) and receiving a second response from the edge enabler server. (page 2, step 3, for both subscribe/unsubscribe, If Edge Application Server is not authorized, the Edge Enabler Server provides a rejection response with cause information)
As to claim 23:
Samsung discloses:
An edge enabler server, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, said memory (Fig.8.6.3.2-1 and associated text, Edge enabler server as a computerized device with ability to read/process data, i.e. processor and memory) containing instructions executable by said processor, whereby said edge enabler server is operative to: receive a first request from an edge application server (Step 01), wherein the first request comprises at least one identifier of at least one user equipment and an information element for indicating to the edge enabling server a request for delegation of user plane path management related to the at least one user equipment; (See page 2, in the Fig. 8.6.3.2.-1 and associated text below, at Edge Enabler, receiving a request from EAS, the request having UE identifier and a request content requesting for user plane path management event subscribe operation for tracking UE’s user plane path change continuously, may further comprise Subscription Type and indication of EAS acknowledgment)
and send a first response to the edge application server. (Step 03, a response is sent to the EAS from the Edge Enabler Server)
As to claim 25:
Samsung discloses:
An edge application server, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor, (Fig.8.6.3.2-1 and associated text, EAS as a computerized device with ability to read/process data, i.e. processor and memory) whereby said edge application server is operative to: send a first request to an edge enabler server (Step 01), wherein the first request comprises at least one identifier of the at least one user equipment and an information element for indicating to the edge enabling server a request for delegation of user plane path management related to the at least one user equipment; (See page 2, in the Fig. 8.6.3.2.-1 and associated text below, at Edge Enabler, sending a request from EAS, the request having UE identifier and a request content requesting for user plane path management event subscribe operation for tracking UE’s user plane path change continuously, may further comprise Subscription Type and indication of EAS acknowledgment)
and receive a first response from the edge enabler server. (Step 03, a response is sent to the EAS from the Edge Enabler Server)
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL(S6-201050) – Clarification on UP path management event API (3GPP TSG-SA WG6 Meeting #38 (July 2020) by Samsung, in further view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0058489).
As to claim 5:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 1, when the edge application server is authorized for the delegation of user plane path management, performing tracking of user plane (See page 2, step 2-3) however is silent skipping a notification of the user plane path management event of the at least one user equipment to the edge application server.
Kim, in a related field of endeavor discloses in at least ¶0203, wherein outing of the corresponding application data traffic may be directly performed by the S-EAS 101, rather than the EEC 52 through a 3GPP system network function (for example, application function (AF) influence on traffic routing). In this case, the step of transmitting the application context relocation complete notification of step 424 may not be performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that in certain scenario in system of Samsung, when application data traffic is actually performed directedly by the EAS, there is no need to perform such notification. The reason is simple: there is no entity to be notified of other than the EAS; and in the scenario of the EAS performs the routing/rerouting itself, the EAS is internally aware of when a relocation is complete, thus there is no need for itself to be self-notify, thus reducing signaling overhead.
As to claim 6:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 1, however is silent on discovering and selecting a target edge application server; and influencing the user plane path of the at least one user equipment.
Kim, in a related field of endeavor, discloses a user path management system/method in at least ¶0070-0074, 0089, 0102, 0114-0119, 0138, which discloses of determining which target edge application server a user device is moving to, selecting said target edge application server for path handover, and initiate the user plane path change for the user equipment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Samsung’s system to incorporate discovering and selecting a target edge application server; and influencing the user plane path of the at least one user equipment. Both Kim and Samsung are concerned with tracking of UE’s user plane path change/events. In mobile environment for a UE, changes due to movement of the user are one of top concern to be tracked from the view of the network for service provision continuity. Thus, the discovering and handing over to a new EAS of a new EDN satisfy the need to continuous providing service when the user moves from one EDN to another. (¶0004 of Kim).
As to claim 8:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 1, however is silent on reconfiguring the user plane path of the at least one user equipment.
Kim, in a related field of endeavor, discloses a user path management system/method, wherein reconfiguring the user plane path of the at least one user equipment in at least ¶0070-0074, 0089, 0102, 0114-0119, 0138, which discloses of determining which target edge application server a user device is moving to, selecting said target edge application server for path handover, and initiate the user plane path modification (reconfiguration) for the user equipment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Samsung’s system to perform reconfiguring the user plane path of the at least one user equipment. Both Kim and Samsung are concerned with tracking of UE’s user plane path change/events. In mobile environment for a UE, changes due to movement of the user are one of top concern to be tracked from the view of the network for service provision continuity. Thus, the discovering and handing over to a new EAS of a new EDN satisfy the need to continuous providing service when the user moves from one EDN to another. (¶0004 of Kim).
As to claim 16:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 15, when the edge application server is authorized for the delegation of user plane path management, performing tracking of user plane (See page 2, step 2-3) however is silent the delegation of user plane path management further comprises: a delegation of skipping a notification of the user plane path management event of the at least one user equipment to the edge application server.
Kim, in a related field of endeavor discloses in at least ¶0203, wherein outing of the corresponding application data traffic may be directly performed by the S-EAS 101, rather than the EEC 52 through a 3GPP system network function (for example, application function (AF) influence on traffic routing). In this case, the step of transmitting the application context relocation complete notification of step 424 may not be performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that in certain scenario in system of Samsung, when application data traffic is actually performed directedly by the EAS, there is no need to perform such notification. The reason is simple: there is no entity to be notified of other than the EAS; and in the scenario of the EAS performs the routing/rerouting itself, the EAS is internally aware of when a relocation is complete, thus there is no need for itself to be self-notify, thus reducing signaling overhead.
As to claim 17:
Samsung discloses all limitations of claim 13, however is silent on the delegation of user plane path management further comprises: a delegation of discovering and selecting a target edge application server; and a delegation of influencing the user plane path of the at least one user equipment.
Kim, in a related field of endeavor, discloses a user path management system/method in at least ¶0070-0074, 0089, 0102, 0114-0119, 0138, which discloses of determining which target edge application server a user device is moving to, selecting said target edge application server for path handover, and initiate the user plane path change for the user equipment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Samsung’s system to incorporate discovering and selecting a target edge application server; and influencing the user plane path of the at least one user equipment. Both Kim and Samsung are concerned with tracking of UE’s user plane path change/events. In mobile environment for a UE, changes due to movement of the user are one of top concern to be tracked from the view of the network for service provision continuity. Thus, the discovering and handing over to a new EAS of a new EDN satisfy the need to continuous providing service when the user moves from one EDN to another. (¶0004 of Kim).
As to claim 18:
Samsung in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 17, wherein the delegation of user plane path management further comprises: a delegation of sending information regarding the target edge application server to the edge application server and/or the at least one user equipment. (See Samsung, page 2, Step 3, “If Edge Application Server is not authorized, the Edge Enabler Server provides a rejection response with cause information”, with cause information read as the information regarding the target edge application server)
As to claim 19:
Samsung in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 17, wherein the delegation of influencing the user plane path of the at least one user equipment comprises a delegation of reconfiguring the user plane path of the at least one user equipment. Kim, as discussed in claim 17, discloses a user path management system/method in at least ¶0070-0074, 0089, 0102, 0114-0119, 0138, which discloses of determining which target edge application server a user device is moving to, selecting said target edge application server for path handover, and initiate the user plane path change for the user equipment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0058489 - A method of relocating application context by an edge enabler client (EEC) in an edge computing system includes determining whether the application context should be relocated based on at least one piece of location information of a user equipment (UE) including the EEC and service area information for an edge data network (EDN), an edge enabler server (EES), or an edge application server, transmitting a context relocation request to a source edge enabler server (S-EES), based on the determination, receiving a context relocation response message indicating completion of the context relocation from the source edge enabler server, and rerouting application data traffic, based on the context relocation response message..
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645