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.
Amendments filed 04/13/2026.
Response to arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed with the RCE have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per page 8 of Remarks, Applicant cites MPEP § 2131 and Verdegaal demanding Samsung must show the identical invention in complete detail.
The examiner respectfully asserts that Samsung does so, in fact, in the claim(s) under rejection of record. Claim 1 requires the edge enabler server to receive a first request from an edge application server and send a first response. Figure 8.6.3.2-1, step 1, is that request: the Edge Application Server requests a user plane path management event subscribe operation, and the request includes a UE Identifier. Step 3 is the subscribe response. The request content requesting that subscribe operation is relied on as the information element indicating a request for delegation of user plane path management related to the UE. The elements are in the same order as the claim. Verdegaal does not require Samsung to disclose embodiments the claim does not recite.
Applicant further states the instant Specification’s Figures 4, 5, and 8 resemble Samsung’s figures only because 3GPP edge sequences use the same interfaces and nodes, and that resemblance is not evidence of anticipation.
The examiner respectfully asserts that rejection is not based on mere resemblance. It cites Figure 8.6.3.2-1, step 1, and step 3 of the NPL. ¶0024-0025 of the instant Specification separately admit that Figs 4 and 5 are the same procedure as Figures 8.6.3.2-1 and 8.6.3.2-2 of TS 23.558 V0.4.0, which is the procedure in the NPL. A common interface does not remove a step the reference expressly discloses.
Applicant further argues that subscribe and delegate are different concepts, and a subscription does not transfer responsibility, authority, or control. Applicant alleged the Office conflates those two categories and that a subscription only registers for notifications and forwards them, and that treating a subscription as a delegation broadens Samsung.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As a matter of the scope of written description, the instant Specification does not describe delegation as a separate category or as a transfer of authority or control. Paragraphs ¶0052, 0114 of Applicant’s published Specification expressively admit the first request may be the user plane path management event API subscribe request, comprising the information element for indicating a request for delegation. Samsung’s table 8.6.3.3.1-1 disclose such an IE as an option on the disclosed subscribe request.
It is also noted that ¶0113 of the instant Specification teaches the indication indicates whether the edge application server wants to delegate user plane path management and subsequent traffic routing influence to the edge enabler server. ¶0044-0048 and ¶0121-0125 say the delegation may comprise checking for a core-network subscription, subscribing, using cached notification information, detecting the event, and skipping a notification. The first four are Figure 8.6.3.2-1, steps 2, 2a, and 2b, and Figure 8.6.3.2-2, step 1. The instant Specification never teaches delegation transfers authority or control. ¶0139 states that the edge application server may want to take back the delegation, and the example is target edge-application-server discovery and traffic routing influence. The argument replaces an optional indication on a subscribe request with a transfer of authority the instant Specification does not describe. Samsung’s step 1 is the request and the UE identifier. No field named “delegation” is required.
Applicant further asserts that the claimed delegation requires the edge enabler server to act in place of the edge application server, arguing Samsung keeps the edge application server as the recipient of notifications and the locus of decision-making.
The instant Specification does not say the edge enabler server acts in place of the edge application server. ¶0028 of the instant Specification states that the edge enabler server can take the responsibility of receiving the path-change notification without notifying the edge application server and of provisioning the subsequent traffic routing influence. Also ¶0065 states that the edge enabler server may take full responsibility including those two acts, and that the edge application server moves “full or a part” of its responsibility for the traffic routing influence. Per ¶0155, delegation the edge enabler server may take care of the traffic routing influence. Acting in place of the edge application server is broader than that disclosure.
The Remarks further alleges Samsung’s subscribe request does not teach an information element indicating a request for delegation in disagreement with the citation of Figure 8.6.3.2-1 alleging steps 1, 2a, 2b, and 3 do not teach the receiving step.
The instant Specification defines that information element as an indication that the edge application server wants to delegate user plane path management and subsequent traffic routing influence, carried in the subscribe request. For example, passages of ¶0113-0114 disclose the intention, i.e. “wants to delegate,” and it places the indication in the subscribe request. The argument treats the information element as if it carried the later operations: no notification, traffic-routing influence, and a completed takeover, referring to the separate embodiments in ¶0125, 0132, and 0155. A request indicating what the edge application server wants to do is in itself not the performance of those operations. Samsung’s step 1 teaches the request, the UE identifier, and the request content. Step 3 teaches the response. Steps 2a and 2b are not necessarily required for claim 1.
Applicant also asserts Samsung’s subscribing with the core network does not mean the edge enabler server has taken full or partial responsibility for continuous tracking, i.e. Samsung’s subscribe-or-cache operation does not imply a takeover, as opposed to forwarding notifications.
The examiner asserts the arguments have imposed limitations or requirement that are not present in the claims. Even the instant Specification does not equate the core-network subscription with taking responsibility. ¶0065 teaches the edge application server moves “its full or a part of responsibility to the edge application server for the traffic routing influence.” The destination named in that sentence is the edge application server, and the subject is traffic routing influence. ¶0028 limits what the edge enabler server takes to receiving the notification without notifying the edge application server and provisioning the subsequent traffic routing influence. Paragraphs ¶0121-0123 describe the subscription check, the subscribe, and use of cached information as operations the delegation may comprise. The argument takes “full or partial” from ¶0065 out of context and applies it to continuous tracking and core-network interaction. Claim 1 does not require a takeover.
Applicant further argues that in Samsung, upon delegation, no user plane path management event API response would occur, i.e. Applicant teaches Samsung fails to disclose a step 3 response that is conditional on delegation.
The examiner respectfully asserts that nothing in independent claims require such conditional response or withholding the response. The arguments are moot as they are directed to limitations not presented in the claims.
Applicant further asserts delegation includes the edge enabler server provisioning traffic routing influence, and Samsung has no application context relocation. Specifically, Applicant states the edge enabler server may take care of traffic routing influence, and Samsung does not show the edge enabler server triggering application context relocation.
The examiner respectfully asserts that nothing in independent claims require either of the acts. The arguments are moot as they are directed to limitations not presented in the claims. Samsung does not have to disclose either act.
Finally, Applicant argues the amendment distinguishes the claim, namely the delegation comprises transferring responsibility for user plane path management from the edge application server to the edge enabler server.
The examiner asserts that amendment does not overcome the rejection. It defines “delegation” in the information element. It adds no step in which the edge enabler server accepts a delegation, withholds a notification, or influences routing. It is also new matter under § 112(a). “Transferring” with regard to user plane path management does not appear in the instant Specification. ¶0030, 0065 move responsibility to the edge application server, not the edge enabler server, and only for the traffic routing influence. Paragraphs ¶0113 describe an indication that the edge application server wants to delegate user plane path management and subsequent traffic routing influence. Arguments 3 through 7 use the amendment to demand a transfer of authority, an acting-in-place, a takeover of continuous tracking, and a withheld subscribe response. None of those is the disclosure, and none is in the claim under .
Samsung and Applicant’s own Specification are directed to the very same edge enabler server, and edge application server, both structurally and functionally. Nothing in the claims or Specification of Applicant have shown a different kind of EES or EAS. And the claims have admitted EAS originally has the responsibility for user plane path management. Thus, Samsung’s EAS would have the same responsibility and functions as that of Applicant. And thus, if Samsung’s EAS requests the EES to do user plane path management that it would have otherwise to do, it is effective doing the so-called “delegation”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The instant Specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The instant Specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19, 21, 23, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the instant Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per MPEP 2163.01, the written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the instant Specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the instant Specification, the language of the instant Specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a Specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. “Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).”
Independent claims 1, 13, 23, and 25 are now amended to add the following limitation:
“the delegation comprises transferring responsibility for user plane path management from the edge application server to the edge enabler server”
The examiner has reviewed the instant Specification and found that Specification does not convey possession of delegation as a transfer of responsibility for user plane path management from the edge application server to the edge enabler server. The amendment has appeared to overstep the supported scope of written description for the term “delegation” to assign a meaning different from that the instant Specification supports.
The examiner has found that term/description for the claimed “transferring of responsibility” (or any equivalent) simply does not appear in the instant Specification. There is no disclosure that explicitly defines “the delegation” as comprising a transfer of responsibility from the edge application server to the edge enabler server. The responsibility passages do not carry the limitation, even if the destination in paragraphs ¶0030, 0065 of the published Specification is read as the edge enabler server.
The published ¶0028 states the existing API assumes the edge application server takes full responsibility, including receiving the user plane path change notification and provisioning its subsequent traffic routing influence, and that the edge enabler server can also take the responsibility of receiving that notification without notifying the edge application server and of provisioning the subsequent traffic routing influence. That is the edge enabler server assuming two functions. It does not describe delegation as comprising a transfer of responsibility for user plane path management. ¶0030 states the edge application server can send a delegation request indication and can move its user plane path management responsibility “for the traffic routing influence.” The move is limited to traffic routing influence. Per the instant Specification, the destination is the edge application server. Reading the destination as the edge enabler server still leaves a move for traffic routing influence, not a transfer of responsibility for user plane path management, and not a definition of delegation.
In addition, the published ¶0065 states the edge enabler server take full responsibility of user plane path management, including receiving the path-change notification and provisioning its subsequent traffic routing influence, and that a delegation request indication may be sent to the edge enabler server so the edge application server moves “its full or a part of responsibility” for the traffic routing influence. “Full or a part” is not every responsibility. “For the traffic routing influence” is not user plane path management at large. The term “Including” identifies the two acts the edge enabler server may take. It does not describe the delegation as comprising a transfer.
Furthermore, per the instant Specification, delegation is an indication and a list of operations. ¶0113 say the delegation request indication indicates whether the edge application server wants to delegate user plane path management and subsequent traffic routing influence to the edge enabler server. ¶0114 also shows the indication in the user plane path management event API subscribe request. ¶0044-0051 and ¶0120-0133 state what the delegation “may comprise”: checking for a core-network subscription, subscribing or using cached notification information, detecting the event, skipping notification, discovering and selecting a target edge application server, influencing and reconfiguring the user plane path, and sending target-server information. A permissive list of operations is not a disclosure that delegation comprises transferring responsibility.
As such, the examiner asserts that the instant amendment is overstepping the scope of the instant Specification. The instant Specification teaches the edge application server moves full or a part of responsibility, only for the traffic routing influence, and that the edge application server may take the delegation back. The amendment language attaches that definition to “the delegation” in the information element of the receiving step. In the instant Specification, that element indicates whether the edge application server wants to delegate.
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)
wherein the delegation comprises transferring responsibility of the user plane path management from the edge application server to the edge enabler server (Fig. 8.6.3.2.-1 – step 1 the EAS request EES to perform the user plane path management event for the identified UE. The EES then checks authorization, subscribes with core network etc. and sends the step 3 response. The Edge Applicant Sever is not performing that requested act that it otherwise would have to as its own responsibility (note that claimed EES and EAS are structurally/functionally identical to Samsung) , and the EES is performing as asked. Therefore, Samsung’s EAS is asking the EES to perform the responsibility it otherwise would have to, thus “delegating”)
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 unsubscribed, 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)
wherein the delegation comprises transferring responsibility of the user plane path management from the edge application server to the edge enabler server (Fig. 8.6.3.2.-1 – step 1 the EAS request EES to perform the user plane path management event for the identified UE. The EES then checks authorization, subscribes with core network etc. and sends the step 3 response. The Edge Applicant Sever is not performing that requested act that it otherwise would have to as its own responsibility (note that claimed EES and EAS are structurally/functionally identical to Samsung) , and the EES is performing as asked. Therefore, Samsung’s EAS is asking the EES to perform the responsibility it otherwise would have to, thus “delegating”)
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)
wherein the delegation comprises transferring responsibility of the user plane path management from the edge application server to the edge enabler server (Fig. 8.6.3.2.-1 – step 1 the EAS request EES to perform the user plane path management event for the identified UE. The EES then checks authorization, subscribes with core network etc. and sends the step 3 response. The Edge Applicant Sever is not performing that requested act that it otherwise would have to as its own responsibility (note that claimed EES and EAS are structurally/functionally identical to Samsung) , and the EES is performing as asked. Therefore, Samsung’s EAS is asking the EES to perform the responsibility it otherwise would have to, thus “delegating”)
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)
wherein the delegation comprises transferring responsibility of the user plane path management from the edge application server to the edge enabler server (Fig. 8.6.3.2.-1 – step 1 the EAS request EES to perform the user plane path management event for the identified UE. The EES then checks authorization, subscribes with core network etc. and sends the step 3 response. The Edge Applicant Sever is not performing that requested act that it otherwise would have to as its own responsibility (note that claimed EES and EAS are structurally/functionally identical to Samsung) , and the EES is performing as asked. Therefore, Samsung’s EAS is asking the EES to perform the responsibility it otherwise would have to, thus “delegating”)
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 2023/0053805 - In step 1A or 1B, in order for the EEC or the EAS to delegate initiation of the application context relocation procedure to the EES instead of a capability to initiate application context relocation, the EEC or the EAS may transmit a delegation request for application context relocation initiation to the EES. Upon receiving the delegation request, the EES may perform a pre-operation of determining whether an application context relocation procedure needs to be initiated. The pre-operation may include an operation in which the EES transmits a subscription request for a related event notification service to a network exposure function (NEF) in order to track a location of the UE or monitor a user plane path management event.
US 2023/0013720 - The method includes sending, by an edge enabler client (120) of a UE (100), an initial service provisioning request to an edge configuration server (400). Further, the method includes receiving, by the edge enabler client (120), an initial service provisioning response comprises an information element from the edge configuration server (400), where the information element indicates the supported discovery mode. Further, the method sending, by the edge enabler client (120), a request for discovering the edge application server (310) to at least one of the edge configuration server (400), a dedicated server for an edge application server information, and a Domain Name System (DNS) server based on the supported discovery mode.
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
Prosecution Insights