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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed 2/3/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17 and 27-28 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following issues.
(A) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Issue 1: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the Examiner-cited references fail to teach the claimed limitations because “Claim 1 indicates whether a particular EAS provides a federated EAS function (i.e., a federated function among multiple EASs for service provision). In contrast, Zaus merely discloses that a "service continuity supported indication (SC indicator)" may be included in a process in which an EAS registers with an EES. This indication only represents whether ACR-based service continuity (i.e., a context transfer mechanism between an s-EAS and a t-EAS) is supported, namely, whether a single EAS service can be continuously provided in a mobility situation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First of all, the argued limitation “a federated function among multiple EASs for service provision” is not claimed, therefore the argument is considered moot.
Secondly, the references relied by the Examiner teaches the claimed “Federated EAS function”. See Examiner’s citation and explanation in the rejection section below. It is to be noted that the EASs participating in supporting the service continuity reads on a federated EAS function.
Issue 2: The applicant further argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the Examiner-cited references fail to teach the claimed limitations because “Claim 1 indicates whether the corresponding EAS has an architecture capable of cooperating with multiple EASs to perform distributed processing, thereby efficiently handling a large amount of workload. In particular, Claim 1 differs from the SC indicator of Rl in that, through the indicator, an EAS capable of distributed processing with other EASs can be discovered at the discovery process. Zaus does not disclose any procedural structure in which an indicator and registration information received at a registration process are stored and later reused for target EAS validation in a subsequent discovery process.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First of all, the argued limitations have a different scope than the claimed limitations therefore the argument is considered moot. For example, neither “distributed processing” nor “procedural structure” is required by the claimed limitations.
Secondly, the Examiner-cited references teach the amended limitations. See Examiner’s citation and explanation in the corresponding rejection section below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determining whether a second EAS associated with the second indicator is in registered information of the at least one EAS on the first EES”.
First of all, it is unclear what is considered “a second EAS associated with the second indicator”. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any association/relationship.
Secondly, it is unclear regarding the scope of “a second EAS is in registered information of the at least one EAS on the first EES.” It is unclear how an EAS (a tangible entity) can be “in information.” In addition, it is unclear whether and how “registered information of the at least one EAS on the first EES” relates to the earlier recited entities such as “a registration request”, “the first profile information”, etc.. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as “determining whether a second EAS provides the federated function.”
Claim 1 recites “in case that the second EAS associated with the second indicator is in the registered information, transmitting, to the first EAS, a first discovery response message.” See similar rejection and Examiner’s interpretation above regarding “the second EAS associated with the second indicator” and “the second EAS…is in the…information”.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17 and 27-28 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZAUS et al (US 2022/0321673 in view of Xu (US 2023/0370527).
As to claim 1, ZAUS discloses a method performed by a first edge enabler server (EES) in a mobile communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from at least one edge application server (EAS), a registration request message including first profile information for the at least one EAS, wherein the first profile information includes a first indicator indicating that the at least one EAS provides a federated EAS function ([0051], “In 410a, the EAS 172 registers with the EES 174. In this example, the EAS 172 and the EES 174 may be configured as an s-EAS and s-EES in a subsequent ACR procedure. During the registration procedure, the EAS 172 may send an EAS profile information element (IE) to the EES 174. The EAS profile IE may include the service continuity supported indication referenced above. In addition, the EAS 172 may indicate which ACR methods are supported by the EAS 172.” Here, the service continuity supported indication is a first indicator indicating that the at least one EAS provides a federated EAS function. See also [0052]);
storing the first profile information for the at least one EAS (0053], “In 415a, the EES 174 registers with the ECS 180. During EES registration, the EES 17 4 may send one or more messages to the ECS 180 comprising a service continuity supported indication and an indication of the supported ACR methods at the EES 174 itself”; [0054], “the UE 110 may contact the ECS 180 to receive service provisioning data. The service provisioning data may include information such as, but not limited to, a list of EESs which are offering edge computing service and are geographically close to the UE 110 and for each EES a list of EASs registered to that EES”);
receiving, from a first EAS, a first discovery request message (Fig. 5, when Bit 3 is set to “1”, and [0065], “If bit 3 is set to 1, this indicates that EAS decided ACR scenario (e.g., method 3) is supported,” wherein the EAS decided ACR scenario indicates that the source EAS initiates a discovery-equivalent request to the EES, and the EES further executes the discovery procedure, see [0058], “In accordance with some ACR methods (e.g., method 3, 4), in 430, the s-EES 174 may perform a t-EAS 172 discovery procedure. During this discovery procedure the s-EES 174 may send one or more messages to the t-EES 404 comprising a service continuity supported indication and an indication of the supported ACR methods at the AC 235, EEC 240, s-EES 174 and s-EAS 172… a fourth IE indicating the one or more ACR methods supported by the s-EAS 172.”) including a second indicator, wherein the second indicator indicates that the first EAS provides the federated EAS function (see citation and explanation above, wherein under method 3, the s-EAS’s initiating ACR for the s-EES to proceed implies an indication by the s-EAS to the s-EES of the s-EAS’s ACR (service continuity) capability);
determining whether a second EAS associated with the second indicator is in registered information of the at least one EAS on the first EES (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation above and [0060], “During a EAS discovery procedure for an EAS or a t-EAS, an EES may select one or more EASs with an EAS profile matching the application client profile, the service continuity required indication and the supported ACR methods indication... The EES may then inform the requesting entity about the common ACR methods in the EAS discovery response message”); and
in case that the second EAS associated with the second indicator is in the registered information, transmitting, to the first EAS, a first discovery response message as response to the first discovery request message (see citation in rejection to preceding limitation wherein the first EAS initiates ACR under method 3 and see [0060], “During a EAS discovery procedure for an EAS or a t-EAS, an EES may select one or more EASs with an EAS profile matching the application client profile, the service continuity required indication and the supported ACR methods indication... The EES may then inform the requesting entity about the common ACR methods in the EAS discovery response message”).
Alternatively, if the claimed limitations were to be given narrower interpretations, then Xu discloses a concept of receiving a discovery request message from a first EAS by a EES, wherein the discovery message including a EAS profile, and transmitting by the EES a discovery response message to the first EAS in response to the discovery request message, the response message including second information of a second EAS (Xu, [0010], “FIG. 4 shows an EAS discovery procedure, as defined in Section 8.8.3 of TS 35 23.558. At 4.1, a source EAS invokes an EAS discovery request on a source EES”; [0011], “The EAS discovery request includes the requestor identifier (EAS ID) along with security credentials and includes EAS discovery filter matching its Edge application Server profile... At 4.4, the target EES discovers the target EAS(s) and responds with the discovered target EAS information to the source EES. The source EES may cache the target EAS information. At 4.5, the source EES responds to the source EAS with the target EAS Information”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine ZAUS with Xu. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable an EAS to initiate transferring of application context to a target EAS (Xu, [0010]-[0011]).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, ZAUS-Xu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in case that the second EAS is not identified, transmitting, to an edge configuration server
(ECS), a EES request message (Xu, [0011], “If it is authorized, the source EES checks if there exists target
EAS information (registered or cached) that can satisfy the requesting EAS information and additional query filters. If the source EES discovers the target EAS(s), the flow continues with step 4.5, else the source EES retrieves a target EES address from an ECS”); and
receiving, from the ECS, a EES response message including information on a second EES associated with the second EAS (Xu, [0011], “else the source EES retrieves a target EES address from an ECS”),
wherein the second EES is identified based on the indicator (Xu, [0011], “If it is authorized, the source EES checks if there exists target EAS information (registered or cached) that can satisfy the requesting EAS information and additional query filters. If the source EES discovers the target EAS(s), the flow continues with step 4.5, else the source EES retrieves a target EES address from an ECS).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, ZAUS-Xu discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
transmitting, to the second EES, the first discovery request message (Xu, [0011], “At. 4.3, the source EES invokes the EAS discovery request on the target EES. The source EES discovery request includes a requestor identifier (EES ID) along with security credentials and includes EAS discovery filter obtained in step 4.1”); and
receiving, from the second EES, the second profile information for the second EAS (Xu, [0011], “At 4.4, the target EES discovers the target EAS(s) and responds with the discovered target EAS information to the source EES”).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 5, ZAUS-Xu discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
identifying an application context relocation (ACR) decision performed by the first EAS (ZAUS,” see Fig. 5, when Bit 3 is set to “1”, and [0065], “If bit 3 is set to 1, this indicates that EAS decided ACR scenario (e.g., method 3) is supported.”); and
receiving, from the first EAS, a list of at least one selected EAS requiring a service continuity (ZAUS, see citation in rejection to claim 1, implied by the “source EAS” itself).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, ZAUS-Xu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from an edge enabler client (EEC) associated with the first EAS, a second discovery request message (ZAUS, Fig. 5, when Bit 3 is set to “2”, “EEC executed application context relocation via S-EES”, and [0065], “if bit 2 is set to 1, this indicates that EEC executed ACR relocation via s-EES ( e.g., method 2) is supported”; see also Figure 4, “425 EEC registration and EAS discovery” from EEC 240 to s-EES 174”; [0057]. “The EEC 240 may perform EAS discovery with the EES 174 via the EDGE-1 reference point or any other suitable connection. Those skilled in the art will understand that EAS discovery is a procedure where the UE 110 discovers an address of an appropriate EAS. Accordingly, in this example, the EEC 240 may send a discovery request to the EES 174. In response, the EES 174 may send a discovery response to the EEC 240 to provide information that explicitly or implicitly indicates an address for the EAS 172. In some scenarios, the discovery response may indicate the address for multiple EASs and it is up to the EEC 240 to select one of the EASs.”) including a list of EASs associated with the federated EAS function (see ZAUS, [0056], “In 425, the EEC 240 performs EEC registration and EAS discovery with the EES 174”; [0076], “The AC profile may also be included in messages towards the EES 174, e.g., EEC registration request, EAS discovery request (in the EAS discovery filters IE”, wherein the EAS discovery filters reflects a list of EASs that meet the filtering requitement. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific way for the list of EASs to be presents, e.g., via respective identifiers); and
transmitting, to the EEC associated with the first EAS, a second discovery response message including the second profile information as response to the second discovery request message (ZAUS, see citation above).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, ZAUS-Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second profile information includes at least one of an identifier (ID) of the second EAS or an endpoint address of the second EAS (Xu, see citation in rejection to claim 1 and [0058], “the s-EES 174 may receive an address for one or more possible t-EASs. In this example, the s-EES 174 receives an address corresponding to the t-EAS 402”).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 27, ZAUS-Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first discovery request message further includes requirements for the federated EAS function (ZAUS, see citation in rejection to claim 1, wherein under method 3, the EAS’s initiating ACR indicates requirements such as for the EAS to proceed with ACR process).
As to claim 28, see similar rejection to claim 27.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458