DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1-16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIM et al. (US 2022/0191776).
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches at an edge computing component (abstract and Fig. 1). KIM teaches that receiving application specific user information for a first application client (AC) user from a first user equipment (UE) with a first AC (pages 4, paragraphs 50 – 59 and Fig. 1, where teaches a first application (App1) and a third application (App3) are installed in the second UE, and the first application (App1) within the first UE and the first application (App1) within the second UE may be the same applications), receiving application specific user information for a second AC user from a second UE with a second AC (pages 4, paragraphs 50 – 59 and Fig. 1, where teaches a first application (App1) and a second or third application (App2 or App3) are installed in the second UE. The first application (App1) within the first UE and the second application (App2) within the second UE), identifying a condition related to a location of the first AC relative to one or more service areas related to edge computing (pages 2, paragraphs 17 – 18, Fig. 1, and pages 6, paragraphs 78 – pages 7, paragraphs 87, where teaches edge enabling server may provide a capability exposure service to the Edge App being executed in the edge computing platform on the basis of the function. For example, a service of identifying the location of the UE, a service of identifying a connection state of the UE, and the like may be included. Further, the edge enabling server may perform a proxy role to use an exposure function which the 3GPP network, for example, the NEF of the 5G mobile communication system provides to the edge application servers, the exposure function provided by the NEF may be a UE mobility-related event, a session-related event, a UE traffic path change event, or the like), and transmitting a notification to the second UE, the notification indicating a presence of the first AC user relative to the one or more service areas (pages 17, paragraphs 217 – 220, Fig. 1, 2, and pages 18, paragraphs 234 – 237, where teaches when binding information of the edge UE ID and the IP address of the UE is updated, the edge enabling server may inform the edge application server of the update in operation, and a UE identifier notification message to be transmitted to the edge application server may include the edge UE ID or the IP address of the UE, and the edge application server receiving the UE identifier notification message may determine to use the edge UE ID received for the IP address of the UE included in the message and store. Accordingly, when the UE accesses the edge application server to perform data communication, if the data communication is performed using the IP address of the UE included in the message, the edge application server may determine the edge UE ID for the corresponding IP address and call an edge service API through the edge UE ID in operation).
Regarding claim 2, KIM teaches that the application specific information for the first AC user is provided in a service provisioning request (pages 3, paragraphs 43 – 45, Fig. 1, 3, and pages 14, paragraphs 183 – 190).
Regarding claim 3, KIM teaches that recording an association between the application specific information for the first AC user, at least one of an AC ID, an edge enabler client (EEC) ID and at least one edge enabler server (EES) ID (pages 4, paragraphs 50 – 59, Fig. 1, and pages 18, paragraphs 226 – 229).
Regarding claim 4, KIM teaches that the first AC and the second AC have a same ACID (pages 4, paragraphs 50 – 59 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, KIM teaches that receiving a subscription request from the first AC, the subscription request comprising an indication that the second AC user is permitted to receive the notification indicating the presence of the first AC user (pages 17, paragraphs 217 – 220, Fig. 1, 2, and pages 18, paragraphs 234 – 237).
Regarding claim 6, KIM teaches that receiving a subscription request from the second AC, the subscription request comprising a request for presence information of the first AC user (pages 3, paragraphs 43 – 45, Fig. 1, 3, and pages 14, paragraphs 183 – 190).
Regarding claim 7, KIM teaches that the subscription request is provided as part of service provisioning (pages 3, paragraphs 43 – 45, Fig. 1, 3, and pages 14, paragraphs 183 – 190).
Regarding claim 8, KIM teaches that the edge computing component is an edge configuration server (ECS) (abstract, page 1, paragraphs 10 – pages 2, paragraphs 19, Fig. 1, 2, and pages 5, paragraphs 67 – pages 6, paragraphs 74).
Regarding claim 9, KIM teaches that the application specific information for the first AC user is provided in an edge enabler client (EEC) registration request (abstract, page 1, paragraphs 10 – pages 2, paragraphs 19, Fig. 1, 2, and pages 3, paragraphs 42 – pages 4, paragraphs 59).
Regarding claim 10, KIM teaches that the edge computing component is an edge enabler server (EES) (abstract, page 1, paragraphs 10 – pages 2, paragraphs 19, Fig. 1, 2, and pages 3, paragraphs 42 – pages 4, paragraphs 59).
Regarding claim 11, KIM teaches that the edge computing component is a presence server separate from the edge configuration server (ECS) and the edge enabler server (EES) (pages 5, paragraphs 67 – pages 6, paragraphs 74, Fig. 1, 2, and page 1, paragraphs 10 – pages 2, paragraphs 19).
Regarding claim 12, KIM teaches all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, KIM further teaches that at a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1) comprising an application client (AC) transmitting application specific user information for a first AC user to an edge computing component (pages 4, paragraphs 50 – 59 and Fig. 1, where teaches a first application (App1) and a third application (App3) are installed in the second UE, and the first application (App1) within the first UE and the first application (App1) within the second UE may be the same applications), transmitting subscription information to the edge computing component, the subscription information including a request for information corresponding to at least a second AC user relative to one or more service areas relating to edge computing (pages 3, paragraphs 43 – 45, Fig. 1, 3, and pages 14, paragraphs 183 – 190, where teaches providing the capability exposure API, the edge computing platform may be connected to a 3GPP system and use an external network capability exposure API provided by the 3GPP system, and the edge computing platform should use the external network capability exposure API of the 3GPP system corresponding to the capability exposure API requested by the edge application server. However, the edge computing platform cannot determine which UE ID has to be used for the external network capability exposure API provided by the 3GPP system. In order to solve the problem, the edge computing platform should provide a method of identifying the UE between the edge application server and the 3GPP system to support the capability exposure, and when the UE makes a request for service discovery, the edge enabling server may transmit information on the edge application server which can be used by the UE), and receiving a notification from the edge computing component, the notification indicating a presence of the second AC user relative to the one or more service areas (pages 17, paragraphs 217 – 220, Fig. 1, 2, and pages 18, paragraphs 234 – 237, where teaches when binding information of the edge UE ID and the IP address of the UE is updated, the edge enabling server may inform the edge application server of the update in operation, and a UE identifier notification message to be transmitted to the edge application server may include the edge UE ID or the IP address of the UE, and the edge application server receiving the UE identifier notification message may determine to use the edge UE ID received for the IP address of the UE included in the message and store. Accordingly, when the UE accesses the edge application server to perform data communication, if the data communication is performed using the IP address of the UE included in the message, the edge application server may determine the edge UE ID for the corresponding IP address and call an edge service API through the edge UE ID in operation).
Regarding claim 13, KIM teaches that triggering establishment of a connection to a common edge application server (EAS) for the first AC user or the second AC user (pages 3, paragraphs 41 - pages 4, paragraphs 59 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, KIM teaches that triggering edge application server (EAS) discovery for a common EAS for the first AC user or the second AC user (pages 3, paragraphs 41 - pages 4, paragraphs 59 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, KIM teaches that the application specific information for the first AC user is provided in a service provisioning request (pages 3, paragraphs 43 – 45, Fig. 1, 3, and pages 14, paragraphs 183 – 190).
Regarding claim 16, KIM teaches that an indication that the second AC user is permitted to receive information indicating a presence of the first AC user relative to one or more service areas (pages 17, paragraphs 217 – 220, Fig. 1, 2, and pages 18, paragraphs 234 – 237).
Regarding claim 18, KIM teaches that the application specific information for the first AC user is provided in an edge enabler client (EEC) registration request (abstract, page 1, paragraphs 10 – pages 2, paragraphs 19, Fig. 1, 2, and pages 3, paragraphs 42 – pages 4, paragraphs 59).
Regarding claim 20, KIM teaches that the edge computing component is a presence server separate from the edge configuration server (ECS) and the edge enabler server (EES) (pages 5, paragraphs 67 – pages 6, paragraphs 74, Fig. 1, 2, and page 1, paragraphs 10 – pages 2, paragraphs 19).
Regarding claim 21, KIM teaches that triggering establishment of a connection to a common edge application server (EAS) for the first AC user upon receipt of a notification indicating a presence of the second AC user in the same service area as the first AC user (pages 17, paragraphs 217 – 220, Fig. 1, 2, pages 3, paragraphs 41 - pages 4, paragraphs 59 and Fig. 1, and pages 18, paragraphs 234 – 237).
Regarding claim 22, KIM teaches that refraining from triggering establishment of a connection to a common edge application server (EAS) for the first AC user until receipt of a notification indicating a presence of the second AC user in the same service area as the first AC user (pages 17, paragraphs 217 – 220, Fig. 1, 2, pages 3, paragraphs 41 - pages 4, paragraphs 59 and Fig. 1, and pages 18, paragraphs 234 – 237).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghosh (US 2012/0066360) discloses Cname-Based Round-Trip Time Measurement in a Content Delivery Network.
Calvarese et al. (US 2022/0414889) discloses Transient Sensor Monitoring Definitions for Edge Computing Devices.
Information regarding...Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system... at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. 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.
J.L
January 3, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649