DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19, and 22-25 are pending. Claim 10 is previously cancelled. Claims 20-21 are newly cancelled. Claim 6 is amended. Claims 22-25 are new. This Office action is in response to Applicant’s request for reconsideration after non-final rejection filed on 12/11/2025.
Response to Arguments
Examiner discusses the arguments of Applicant’s representative below.
Rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s representative argues that the text of 3GPP that describes “4a-4b: Option 1” does not state that the “FQDN” is sent to the C-DNS server. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. This text is reproduced below:
“4a-4b: Option1: The LDNSR adds the IPv4 subnet or IPv4 address or IPv6 prefix provisioned by SMF in step 3 as ECS option as specified in RFC 7871 and sends it to the C-DNS server. The C-DNS server returns the DNS response including EAS IP address” (emphasis added).
Based on the surrounding context, the word “it” clearly refers to the term “DNS query,” which includes the FQDN according to step 1 as described on page 113, i.e., “1. The UE sends a DNS query including the requested FQDN.” For instance, steps 4a-4d refer to two different options for sending the DNS query from the LDNSR to the C-DNS server. In option 1, the LDNSR adds information to “it” (i.e., the DNS query) as an ECS before forwarding “it” (i.e., the DNS query) to the C-DNS server and subsequently receiving the DNS response from the C-DNS server. Moreover, according to the text describing “4a-4b: Option 1,” the DNS response from the C-DNS server incudes an edge application server (EAS) IP address. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the C-DNS server obtains the IP address of the EAS by performing a lookup operation using an identifier of the EAS (i.e., the FQDN) contained within the DNS query.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 22-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) because they are unpatentable over the non-patent literature entitled “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on enhancement of support for Edge computing in 5G Core network (5GC)(Release 17)” (hereinafter, “3GPP”), in further view of either Xu (US 2023/0354149) or Stammers (US 2020/0120446).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, 3GPP teaches a communication method, comprising: receiving, by a first entity, first request information from a terminal device, wherein the first request information includes first application identification information (A local domain name server resolver (LDNSR) receives a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) from a terminal. See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, step 1); determining, by the first entity, second information based on first information obtained from a session management function network element (The LDNSR determines forwarding parameters based on configuration information received from a session management function (SMF). See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, step 3), wherein the second information includes extended mechanisms for DNS client subnet option corresponding to a first identifier (The forwarding parameters comprise an IP address to include in an extended mechanisms for DNS (EDNS) client subnet (ECS) option, the IP address corresponding to a data network access identifier (DNAI). See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, step 3, option 1), wherein the first identifier is a data network access identifier of a data network, in data networks corresponding to a second identifier, closest to the terminal device, and the second identifier includes at least one data network access identifier corresponding to a current location of the terminal device (The DNAI corresponds to a data network associated by the SMF with the location of the terminal, i.e., the data network that is closest to the location of the terminal device, from among a plurality of DNAIs that correspond to the location of the terminal device. See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, step 3 option 1; see also 3GPP’s 36 recitations of the term “closest”); and sending, by the first entity, DNS request information to a central DNS server based on the second information, wherein the DNS request information includes the first application identification information, and the DNS request information is usable to obtain address information of an application server (The LDNSR sends a DNS request with the FQDN and the forwarding parameters to a central DNS (C-DNS) server, which selects an application server using the information in the DNS request. See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, steps 4a-4b, option 1).
However, assuming arguendo that 3GPP does not teach that the DNAI to which the ECS Option (or L-DNS address) corresponds is the closest data network to the user terminal, Xu teaches a system whereby a first entity determines an ECS option corresponding to a current location of a terminal device, whereby the first entity forwards a DNS query including the ECS option to a DNS server, and whereby the information in the DNS query is used to select an edge application server that is closest to the terminal. See par. 71, 88, and 138-139. Similarly, Stammers teaches a system whereby a user plane function (UPF) determines a client subnet address of a terminal, whereby the UPF forwards a DNS query including the client subnet address to an address resolution function, and whereby the client subnet address is used to select an edge application server that is closest to the terminal. See par. 56, 67; fig. 8A-8B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of 3GPP so that the ECS option or the L-DNS is used to select the DNAI that is closest to the UE, because doing minimizes the geographical or topological distance between the UE and the application server, thereby potentially minimizing the latency that the UE experiences while receiving the requested service from the selected application server.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 17, 3GPP teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the first entity, the first information from the session management function network element, wherein the first information includes the second information (The configuration information received from the SMF may specify the ECS option or the address of the L-DNS server serving the DNAI available at the terminal’s location. See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, options 1, 2a, and 2b).
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 18, 3GPP teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the first entity, the first application identification information to the session management function network element, wherein the first application identification information is useable to obtain the first information (The LDNSR may send the FQDN to the SMF in order to obtain the configuration information that corresponds to the FQDN. See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, step 3).
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 19, 3GPP teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the DNS request information further includes the second information (The DNS request that the LDNSR sends to the C-DNS includes the ECS option. See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, steps 4a-4b, option 1; see also section 6.22.1.4, pg. 110).
Regarding claim 7, 3GPP teaches the method according to claim, further comprising: sending, by the session management function network element, the first information to the first entity (The SMF sends the configuration information to the LDNSR. See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, options 1, 2a, and 2b).
Regarding claim 8, 3GPP teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the first information further includes a third identifier and third information corresponding to the third identifier, the third identifier includes application identification information of an application deployed on a data network corresponding to the second identifier, and the third information includes an extended mechanism for DNS client subnet option corresponding to the third identifier (The LDNSR may receive an FQDN identifying an application server and an ECS option corresponding to the FQDN from the SMF. See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, options 1, 2a, and 2b; step 3).
Regarding claim 9, 3GPP teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the first entity, the first application identification information to the session management function network element; and receiving, by the session management function network element, the first application identification information from the first entity; and the sending the first information to the first entity includes: sending the first information to the first entity based on the first application identification information received from the first entity (The LDNSR may send the FQDN to the SMF, and the SMF may send the configuration information to the LDNSR based on the FQDN. See section 6.22.2, pg. 113, step 3).
Conclusion
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 Andrew Georgandellis whose telephone number is 571-270-3991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30-5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/ANDREW C GEORGANDELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459