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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,6,7,9,10,14,21,25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Takakura et al. (US 20240107424, hereinafter Takakura) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2021138309, hereinafter Wang)
Regarding claim 1, Takakura teaches transmitting an edge application server (EAS) discovery request to an edge enabler server (EES) (Fig. 1; The UE (1) includes an edge enabler client (EEC) and application clients (ACs); Fig. 6; The EEC (UE) sends EAS discovery request (601) to a EES (5); Par. 8: Lines 5-6; The EEC makes a EAS discovery request to the EES);
and receiving a discovery response from the EES, wherein the discovery response comprises EAS endpoint information (Par. 43: Lines 7-8; The EEC (UE) uses EAS endpoint information obtained from the EAS discovery).
Takakura does not disclose a UE receiving location information associated with other UEs that are to participate in a session with the UE and while Takakura teaches EAS discovery using EAS discovery filters (Par. 8; The EAS discovery request uses EAS discovery filters to help select an appropriate EAS; Par. 9: Lines 1-5; The EES selects an EAS based on the EAS discovery filters) Takakura does not disclose wherein the EAS discovery request includes the location information associated with the other UES, wherein the location information of the other UEs is included in an EAS discovery filter information element (IE) of the EAS discover request.
Wang, however, teaches receiving location information associated with other UEs that are to participate in a session with the UE (Par. 332: Lines 2-5; UE1 possesses location information of other participating UEs). Wang further teaches transmitting a message comprising location information associated with participating UEs and using that location information to discover/select an appropriate edge server (Par. 332: Lines 2-8; The UE sends a message to the MSGin5G Cloud Server (MCS) comprising location information indicating the location of multiple target UEs. The MCS finds an appropriate edge enabler server (EES) using the location of the source and target UEs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the EAS discovery request of Takakura to include, within the EAS discovery filters taught by Takakura, the location information of participating UEs taught by Wang, so that the EES may select an appropriate EAS based on the locations of both the requesting UE and the participating UEs, thereby improving edge server selection for multi-user communications and reducing communication latency between the participating UEs and the selected EAS.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, Takakura in view of Wang, teach EAS request including the location of other UEs, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Wang further teaches a discovery response to a UE including endpoint information (Par. 331: Lines 13-6; The UE receives a response that includes that identifier of the discovered MSG 5G Edge Server (MES); A MES is fundamentally a type of EAS). Wang further teaches the ability to send discovery/context information from one UE to another UE (Par. 320: Lines 2-18; Different EECs (UEs) transmit data to a central EES which redistributes the data, enabling transmission between EECs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EAS request including the location of other UEs of Takakura in View of Wang, with the ability to receive endpoint information and the ability to send information to multiple UEs of Wang. Given that Wang already teaches transmission of discovery context across UEs via a central EES, and the EES is responsible for endpoint selection, it would have been a predictable design choice to configure the EES to return the same EAS endpoint information to the UE and other UEs in the session. Doing so would improve session performance, ensure consistent connectivity, and reduce discovery latency.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, Takakura in view of Wang teach an EAS discovery request using the location information of other UEs, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Wang further teaches the ability to provide location information (e.g., longitude and latitude) regarding the current location of a wireless transceiver receiver unit (UE)) (Par. 63: Lines 1-2; The location (latitude and longitude) of the wireless transceiver receiver unit (UE) is provided).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EAS request including the location of other UEs of Takakura in View of Wang with the ability to provide the latitude and longitude of a UE, to include the latitude and longitude of all participating UEs in the discovery message. This would allow for finer-grained geographic discrimination by the EES, yielding more accurate EES selection, reduced discovery iterations, and lower latency across all participants.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 9. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 9 have been addressed.
Regarded claim 10 as applied to claim 9, Takakura in view of Wang disclose the UE and other UEs receiving the same endpoint information, as detailed in the rejection of claim 6. Wang further teaches the ability to choose a MES using the location of the UE and other UEs (Par. 332: Lines 5-9; An appropriate MES may be discovered using the location of the UE and other UEs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EAS endpoint discovery of Takakura in view of Wang, with the ability to choose an endpoint server using the location of the UE and other UEs of Wang. This would coordinate all participants on a common, location-approximate EAS, minimizing inter-edge handoffs, balancing path latency, and improving end-to-end QoS for the session.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 9, Takakura in View of Wang teach an EAS request including the location of the UE and other UEs, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Takakura in view of Wang further teaches the UE and other UEs receiving the same EAS endpoint information, as detailed in the rejection of claim 6. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1 and claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 21. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 21 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 25 as applied to claim 1, the rejection of claim 6 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 25. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 25 have been addressed.
Claims 3,4,22,23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Takakura et al. (US 20240107424, hereinafter Takakura) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2021138309, hereinafter Wang) in further view of 3GPP (“3GPP TS 23.558 v17.2.0’, hereinafter 3GPP)
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Takakura in view of Wang teach an EAS discovery request that includes the location of multiple UEs in an EAS discovery filter information element as detailed in the rejection of claim 1.
3GPP further teaches an information element of “List of AC characteristics” (Pg. 74: Table 8.5.3.2-2; EAS discovery filters). This list describes the ACs for which a matching EAS is needed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the EAS discovery filter information element that contains the location of other UEs of Takakura in view of Wang, with the “List of AC characteristics” as an information element, as further taught by 3GPP. This would be a predictable approach to improve EAS selection and performance consistency.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 2, Takakura in view of Wang teaches an EAS discovery request that includes the location of multiple UEs in an EAS discovery filter information element, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1.
3GPP further teaches an information element of “List of EAS characteristics” (Pg. 74: Table 8.5.3.2; EAS discovery filters). This describes the characteristics of required EAS.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the EAS discovery filter information element that contains the location of other UEs of Takakura in view of Wang in further view of 3GPP, with the “List of EAS characteristics” as an information element as further taught by 3GPP. This would be a predictable enhancement to server selection. An EAS can be chosen to ensure balanced service equality for all the users.
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 21, the rejection of claim 3 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 22. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 22 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 23 as applied to claim 21, the rejection of claim 4 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 23. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 23 have been addressed.
Claims 5,12,13,24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Takakura et al. (US 20240107424, hereinafter Takakura) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2021138309, hereinafter Wang) in further view of Hall et al. (US 20210136177, hereinafter Hall)
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1, Takakura in view of Wang teaches an EAS discovery request using the location information of other UEs, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Takakura further teaches using discovery filters in the discovery process (Par. 8: Lines 4-5; Discovery filters are used in the discovery if an EAS).
However, Takakura in view of Wang, does not teach wherein the EAS discovery filter further comprises a selection criteria, wherein the EAS selection criteria is to select an EAS configured to provide a same or similar latency to the UE and the other UEs of the session.
Hall, however, teaches using parameters to select an edge application server from a plurality of edge application servers that indicate the lowest latency (Par. 12; Selecting is done by choosing the EAS that provides the lowest latency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifies the EAS discovery request using discovery filters of Takakura in view of Wang to include EAS selection criteria based on latency metrics as taught by Hall. Reducing latency and ensuring consistent performance is a well established objective in edge computing. Using the latency to choose an appropriate EAS is a predictable solution.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 5 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 12. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 12 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 12, the rejection of claim 5 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 13. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 13 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 24 as applied to claim 1, the rejection of claim 5 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 24. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 24 have been addressed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Takakura et al. (US 20240107424, hereinafter Takakura) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2021138309, hereinafter Wang) in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20140143407, hereinafter Zhang)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 7, Takakura in view of Wang do not teach wherein the location information comprises (i) an area comprising a geographic circle around a center of mass of the locations of the UE and other UEs, (ii) an area comprising a geographic circle around a location of a specific other UE for which predefined service key performance indicators (KPIs) are to be used, or (iii) an area including a location of the UE and the locations of one or more other UEs that want to join the session.
Zhang, however, teaches a centroid used as a reference for selecting optimal edge server locations to reduce latency of the users (Par. 26: Lines 3-10; Using clustering technique to find the optimal server close to a centroid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifies the EAS discovery request that includes locations of other UEs of Takakura in view of Wang, to use an area defined around a geographic centroid, of Zhang. Using the center of mass to represent the session’s participant’s region provides a practical balance between privacy and improving collective network performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights