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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 1/15/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are amended, claims 4, 11 and 18 are canceled, claims 21-23 are new, and claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-23 are currently pending.
Claim objections with respect to claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20 have been withdrawn based on the filed amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-23 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to amended independent claim 1 (and similarly to amended independent claims 8 and 15) that the previous cited references, Xiang in view of Etuke, alone or in combination does not describe or suggest receiving, by a geo-fencing system, a first geo-fence subscription request from a first application executed by a first Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) platform or a first server, wherein the first geo-fence subscription request identifies a first geographic area of a first geo-fence associated with the first application; receiving, by the geo-fencing system, a second geo-fence subscription request from a second application executed by a second MEC platform or a second server, wherein the second geo-fence subscription request identifies a second geographic area of a second geo-fence associated with the second application; and selecting at least one of the first application or the second application, to perform at least one first service that handles UE traffic transiting to or from the UE, based on whether the UE has entered the first geographic area or the second geographic area.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xiang teaches UTM architecture 1700 includes 3GPP network exposure functions (NEFs) 1705 that support external exposure of capabilities and services of 3GPP network functions 1707 to over-the-top applications (e.g., application functions (AFs) 1709). Some of the AFs 1709 may be or implement functions of the UTM. Application programming interfaces (APIs) 1711 define interactions between NEFs 1705 and AFs 1709 (Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203). UTM (AF) subscribes to a location report by sending a request to NEF, and the request specifies an area or a location. As evidenced by Figure 17, plurality of UTM/AF may subscribe to the location report subscription/service. The NEF and AMF then configure the network to monitor the specified area, when UAV A flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, UTM/AF that requested the location report subscription is then informed (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0230). Examiner asserts that since plurality of UTM/AF are subscribing location report service with the NEF, and that NEF is report any change in the monitored location with monitored device to the appropriate UTM/AF, then NEF is aware and know the UTM/AF identity and location area. Since the claims are amended, please refer below to the section “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103” for detailed mapping of each limitation. Therefore, the combination of Xiang and Etuke teaches receiving, by a geo-fencing system, a first geo-fence subscription request from a first application executed by a first Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) platform or a first server, wherein the first geo-fence subscription request identifies a first geographic area of a first geo-fence associated with the first application; receiving, by the geo-fencing system, a second geo-fence subscription request from a second application executed by a second MEC platform or a second server, wherein the second geo-fence subscription request identifies a second geographic area of a second geo-fence associated with the second application; and selecting at least one of the first application or the second application, to perform at least one first service that handles UE traffic transiting to or from the UE, based on whether the UE has entered the first geographic area or the second geographic area, as recited in amended independent claim 1 (and similarly to amended independent claims 8 and 15).
Applicant further argues, with respect to dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17 and 19-23, that additionally cited reference De La Rue does not remedy the deficiencies in Xiang in view of Etuke, therefore withdraw of rejections of these claims is requested for at least the reasons given above with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15.
Examiner asserts that these dependent claims is dependent from independent claims 1, 8 and 15, therefore is rejected at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to abstract idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example receiving a first geo-fence subscription request, receiving a second geo-fence subscription request, receiving a location report, determining based on the location report whether a UE has entered the first geographic area or the second geographic area; and selecting an application to handle UE traffic. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
The method claim 1 recites limitations, “A method, comprising: receiving, by a geo-fencing system, a first geo-fence subscription request from a first application executed by a first Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) platform or a first server, wherein the first geo-fence subscription request identifies a first geographic area of a first geo-fence associated with the first application; receiving, by the geo-fencing system, a second geo-fence subscription request from a second application executed by a second MEC platform or a second server, wherein the second geo-fence subscription request identifies a second geographic area of a second geo-fence associated with the second application; receiving, by the geo-fencing system, a location report that identifies a cell, cell sector, eNodeB (eNB), gNodeB (gNB), or tracking area (TA) associated with a current location of a User Equipment device (UE) in a mobile network; determining, by the geo-fencing system based on the location report, whether the UE has entered the first geographic area or the second geographic area; and selecting at least one of the first application or the second application, to perform at least one first service that handles UE traffic transiting to or from the UE, based on whether the UE has entered the first geographic area or the second geographic area”. Since the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites receiving a first geo-fence subscription request, receiving a second geo-fence subscription request, receiving a location report, determining based on the location report whether a UE has entered the first geographic area or the second geographic area; and selecting an application to handle UE traffic. These limitations without showing steps or functions recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of receiving, sending, receiving and generating, etc. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea = YES).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, reply on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application; improving the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea = YES).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the current scenario there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar features as claim 1, therefore is analyzed in similar fashion as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17 and 19-23 do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
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 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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (US 20220277657 A1), in view of Etuke et al. (US 20220322058 A1 and Etuke hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Xiang teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a geo-fencing system (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; NEF 1911; Examiner inserts that NEF is interpreted as a geo-fencing system), a first geo-fence subscription request from a first application executed by a first Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) platform or a first server (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; UTM 1913 [interpreted as a first server] subscribes to a location report by sending a request to NEF 1911), wherein the first geo-fence subscription request identifies a first geographic area of a first geo-fence associated with the first application (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; the request specifies an area (e.g., Area A) or a location. Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203; UTM architecture 1700 includes 3GPP network exposure functions (NEFs) 1705 that support external exposure of capabilities and services of 3GPP network functions 1707 to over-the-top applications (e.g., application functions (AFs) 1709). Some of the AFs 1709 may be or implement functions of the UTM. Application programming interfaces (APIs) 1711 define interactions between NEFs 1705 and AFs 1709. Therefore the NEF may receive plurality of geo-fence subscription from plurality of UTMs);
receiving, by the geo-fencing system (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; NEF 1911), a second geo-fence subscription request from a second application executed by a second Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) platform or a second server (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; UTM 1913 [interpreted as a first server] subscribes to a location report by sending a request to NEF 1911. Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203; UTM architecture 1700 includes 3GPP network exposure functions (NEFs) 1705 that support external exposure of capabilities and services of 3GPP network functions 1707 to over-the-top applications (e.g., application functions (AFs) 1709). Some of the AFs 1709 may be or implement functions of the UTM. Application programming interfaces (APIs) 1711 define interactions between NEFs 1705 and AFs 1709. Therefore the NEF may receive plurality of geo-fence subscription from plurality of UTMs), wherein the second geo-fence subscription request identifies a second geographic area of a second geo-fence associated with the second application (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; the request specifies an area (e.g., Area A) or a location);
receiving, by the geo-fencing system, a location report (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0230; in a first option, AMF 1907 triggers a location report for UE to GMLC 1909 and GMLC 1909 then sends a location report of UE to NEF 1911. In a second option, AMF 1907 triggers a location report for UE directly to NEF 1911) that identifies a cell, cell sector, eNodeB (eNB), gNodeB (gNB), or tracking area (TA) associated with a current location of a User Equipment device (UE) in a mobile network (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0231; UAV A 1905 flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, with UAV A 1905 being registered to tracking area (TA) A (block 1924). The mapping between the tracking area for a UAV and the 3GPP TA may be 1:1 or 1:N, where the mapping relationship is based on an agreement between the UTM and the 3GPP network);
determining, by the geo-fencing system based on the location report, whether the UE has entered the first geographic area or the second geographic area (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0230; UAV A 1905 flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, with UAV A 1905 being registered to tracking area (TA) A (block 1924). AMF 1907 detects the change associated with UAV A 1905. AMF 1907 triggers a location report for UE with UAV ID1 directly to NEF 1911 (event 1930). NEF 1911 then sends a location report of UAV ID1 in area A to UTM 1913 (event 1932). UTM 1913 takes action with respect to UAV A 1905 if area A is a no fly zone for UAV A 1905 (block 1934)); and
selecting at least one of the first application or the second application, to perform at least one first service that handles the UE (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0230; NEF 1911 sends a location report of UAV ID1 in area A to UTM 1913 (event 1932). UTM 1913 takes action with respect to UAV A 1905 if area A is a no fly zone for UAV A 1905 (block 1934)), based on whether the UE has entered the first geographic area or the second geographic area (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0230; UAV A 1905 flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, with UAV A 1905 being registered to tracking area (TA) A (block 1924). AMF 1907 detects the change associated with UAV A 1905. AMF 1907 triggers a location report for UE with UAV ID1 directly to NEF 1911 (event 1930). NEF 1911 then sends a location report of UAV ID1 in area A to UTM 1913 (event 1932). UTM 1913 takes action with respect to UAV A 1905 if area A is a no fly zone for UAV A 1905 (block 1934)).
Xiang does not explicitly teach Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) platform; and selecting least one of the first application or the second application to perform at least one first service that handles UE traffic transiting to or from the UE. In an analogous art, Etuke teaches Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) platform (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0031, 0038 and 0054; geofenced mobile edge computing customer management. Paragraphs 0041 and 0055; receiving an indication that a user equipment is at a location associated with a geofenced mobile edge computing equipment); and selecting least one of the first application or the second application to perform at least one first service that handles UE traffic transiting to or from the UE (Paragraph 0038; each LMCM mobile device can successfully attach to the RAN and MEC SGW/PGW user plane at the customer premises, and, in addition, have access to the MEC private APN for reachability to the MEC operations portal. The MEC portal at the MEC operations center can associate the geofenced customer traffic with the traffic allowed by the MEC private APN. Figure 6 and Paragraph 0065; in response to determining that the user equipment is located in the tracking area of the MEC and has subscribed to the service, the method can comprise connecting, by the mobile edge computing equipment, the user equipment to a private internet service). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xiang and Etuke because it would enable a large portion of the population to stream high-definition media many hours per day with their mobile devices and also provide improved support of machine-to-machine communication at lower cost, battery consumption and latency (Etuke, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Xiang and Etuke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 in method form rather than in a system form. Therefore claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Xiang teaches a geo-fencing system (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0286; a computing system 2600 that may be used for implementing the devices, and can be any entity of UE, access network, mobility management, session management, user plane gateway, or access stratum), comprising:
a processing unit configured to store (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0286; multiple processing units. Paragraph 0288; mass storage 2604 [of processing unit 2602] may be configured to store data, programs and other information and may the data, program, and other information accessible via the bus 2620);
a communication interface configured to receive (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0290; the processing unit 2602 also includes one or more network interfaces 2606, which may comprise wired links or wireless links. The network interfaces 2606 allows the processing unit 2602 to communicate with remote units via the networks);
wherein the processing unit is further configured (Figure 19; the system may perform functions as illustrated in Figure 19).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Xiang and Etuke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 in method form rather than in a non-transitory storage medium form. Therefore claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Xiang teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable by a network device, wherein the instructions comprise instructions to cause the network device to perform (Paragraph 0029; a non-transitory memory storage comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the UTM to perform functions).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Xiang and Etuke teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as described above. Further Xiang teaches sending, when the UE has been determined to enter the first geographic area of the first geo-fence (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; NEF 1911 and AMF 1907 configure the network to monitor the specified area (event 1922). UAV A 1905 flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, with UAV A 1905 being registered to tracking area (TA) A (block 1924). AMF 1907 detects the change associated with UAV A 1905. Examiner asserts that AMF 1907 detects UAV A flies into (thus enters) the specified area (thus geo-fence)), a first geo-fence entry alert for delivery to the first MEC platform or the first server, wherein the first geo-fence entry alert indicates that the UE has entered the first geo-fence (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0230; NEF 1911 sends a location report of UAV ID1 in area A to UTM 1913 (event 1932). Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203; UTM architecture 1700 includes 3GPP network exposure functions (NEFs) 1705 that support external exposure of capabilities and services of 3GPP network functions 1707 to over-the-top applications (e.g., application functions (AFs) 1709). Some of the AFs 1709 may be or implement functions of the UTM. Application programming interfaces (APIs) 1711 define interactions between NEFs 1705 and AFs 1709. Therefore the NEF may communicate with plurality of UTMs); and sending, when the UE has been determined to enter the second geographic area of the second geo-fence (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; NEF 1911 and AMF 1907 configure the network to monitor the specified area (event 1922). UAV A 1905 flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, with UAV A 1905 being registered to tracking area (TA) A (block 1924). AMF 1907 detects the change associated with UAV A 1905. Examiner asserts that AMF 1907 detects UAV A flies into (thus enters) the specified area (thus geo-fence)), a second geo-fence entry alert for delivery to the second MEC platform or the second server, wherein the second geo-fence entry alert indicates that the UE has entered the second geo-fence (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0230; NEF 1911 sends a location report of UAV ID1 in area A to UTM 1913 (event 1932). Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203; UTM architecture 1700 includes 3GPP network exposure functions (NEFs) 1705 that support external exposure of capabilities and services of 3GPP network functions 1707 to over-the-top applications (e.g., application functions (AFs) 1709). Some of the AFs 1709 may be or implement functions of the UTM. Application programming interfaces (APIs) 1711 define interactions between NEFs 1705 and AFs 1709. Therefore the NEF may communicate with plurality of UTMs).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Xiang and Etuke teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as described above. Further, Xiang teaches receiving, by the geo-fencing system, a third geo-fence subscription request from a third application executed by a third MEC platform or a third server (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; UTM 1913 [interpreted as a first server] subscribes to a location report by sending a request to NEF 1911), wherein the third geo-fence subscription request identifies a third geographic area of a third geo-fence associated with the third application (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; the request specifies an area (e.g., Area A) or a location. Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203; UTM architecture 1700 includes 3GPP network exposure functions (NEFs) 1705 that support external exposure of capabilities and services of 3GPP network functions 1707 to over-the-top applications (e.g., application functions (AFs) 1709). Some of the AFs 1709 may be or implement functions of the UTM. Application programming interfaces (APIs) 1711 define interactions between NEFs 1705 and AFs 1709. Therefore the NEF may receive plurality of geo-fence subscription from plurality of UTMs. Even though Figure 17 only showed 2 AFs/UTMs communicate with each NEF, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the NEF communicating/supporting more than two MEC/servers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art); determining, by the geo-fencing system based on the location report, whether the UE has entered the third geographic area (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0230; UAV A 1905 flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, with UAV A 1905 being registered to tracking area (TA) A (block 1924). AMF 1907 detects the change associated with UAV A 1905. AMF 1907 triggers a location report for UE with UAV ID1 directly to NEF 1911 (event 1930). NEF 1911 then sends a location report of UAV ID1 in area A to UTM 1913 (event 1932). UTM 1913 takes action with respect to UAV A 1905 if area A is a no fly zone for UAV A 1905 (block 1934)); and wherein selecting the at least one of the first application or the second application further comprises: selecting at least one of the first application, the second application, or the third application, to perform the at least one first service that handles the UE (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0230; NEF 1911 sends a location report of UAV ID1 in area A to UTM 1913 (event 1932). UTM 1913 takes action with respect to UAV A 1905 if area A is a no fly zone for UAV A 1905 (block 1934)), based on whether the UE has entered the first geographic area, the second geographic area, or the third geographic area (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0230; UAV A 1905 flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, with UAV A 1905 being registered to tracking area (TA) A (block 1924). AMF 1907 detects the change associated with UAV A 1905. AMF 1907 triggers a location report for UE with UAV ID1 directly to NEF 1911 (event 1930). NEF 1911 then sends a location report of UAV ID1 in area A to UTM 1913 (event 1932). UTM 1913 takes action with respect to UAV A 1905 if area A is a no fly zone for UAV A 1905 (block 1934)).
In addition, Etuke teaches selecting least one of the first application, the second application, or the third application to perform the at least one first service that handles the UE traffic transiting to or from the UE (Paragraph 0038; each LMCM mobile device can successfully attach to the RAN and MEC SGW/PGW user plane at the customer premises, and, in addition, have access to the MEC private APN for reachability to the MEC operations portal. The MEC portal at the MEC operations center can associate the geofenced customer traffic with the traffic allowed by the MEC private APN. Figure 6 and Paragraph 0065; in response to determining that the user equipment is located in the tracking area of the MEC and has subscribed to the service, the method can comprise connecting, by the mobile edge computing equipment, the user equipment to a private internet service). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xiang and Etuke because it would enable a large portion of the population to stream high-definition media many hours per day with their mobile devices and also provide improved support of machine-to-machine communication at lower cost, battery consumption and latency (Etuke, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combination of Xiang and Etuke teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as described above. Further, Xiang teaches wherein the location report originates from an Access and Mobility Function (AMF) or a Mobility Management Entity (MME) in the mobile network (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0230; AFM 1907 triggers a location report [interpreted as the MONTE location report] for UE with UAV ID1 to NEF 1911).
Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang in view of Etuke, as applied in the claims above, further in view of De La Rue (US 8229473 B1).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Xiang and Etuke teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as described above. Further, Xiang teaches wherein the first geo-fence subscription request further comprises a UE identifier (ID) associated with the UE (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; UTM 1913 subscribes to a location report by sending a request to NEF 1911 [for UAV A]), first information defining the first geographic area of the first geo-fence (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; UTM 1913 subscribes to a location report by sending a request to NEF 1911. The request specifies an area (e.g., area A) [may be interpreted as information defining the geo-fence] or a location), and a first application ID associated with the first application executed by the first MEC platform or the first server (Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203; some of the AF [Application Function, thus interpreted as geo-fence enabled application] may be or implemented functions of the UTM. Examiner asserts some other AF may be separate from UTM and may communicate with NEF and UTM. Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0230; UTM 1913 subscribes to a location report specifies an area or a location to monitor, and a location report of UAV ID1 in area A is sent to UTM/AF. Therefore an identifier may be associated with the AF in order to provide the location report to the AF/UTM that subscribed to the service), and wherein the second geo-fence subscription request further comprises the UE ID (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; UTM 1913 subscribes to a location report by sending a request to NEF 1911 [for UAV A]), second information defining the second geographic area of the second geo-fence (Figure 19 and Paragraph 0229; UTM 1913 subscribes to a location report by sending a request to NEF 1911. The request specifies an area (e.g., area A) [may be interpreted as information defining the geo-fence] or a location), and a second application ID associated with the second application executed by the second MEC platform or the second server (Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203; some of the AF [Application Function, thus interpreted as geo-fence enabled application] may be or implemented functions of the UTM. Examiner asserts some other AF may be separate from UTM and may communicate with NEF and UTM. Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0230; UTM 1913 subscribes to a location report specifies an area or a location to monitor, and a location report of UAV ID1 in area A is sent to UTM/AF. Therefore an identifier may be associated with the AF in order to provide the location report to the AF/UTM that subscribed to the service. Further, UTM architecture 1700 includes 3GPP network exposure functions (NEFs) 1705 that support external exposure of capabilities and services of 3GPP network functions 1707 to over-the-top applications (e.g., application functions (AFs) 1709). Some of the AFs 1709 may be or implement functions of the UTM. Application programming interfaces (APIs) 1711 define interactions between NEFs 1705 and AFs 1709. Therefore the NEF may communicate with plurality of UTMs).
The combination of Xiang and Etuke does not explicitly teach geographic coordinates defining the geographic area of the geo-fence. In ana analogous art, De La Rue teaches geographic coordinates defining the geographic area of the geo-fence (Col 5 Lines 10-18; application 102 receives or stores one or more defined Geo-Fences. The Geo-Fence is defined in terms of real-world coordinates). Further, De La Rue teaches wherein the geo-fence comprises a UE identifier (ID) associated with the UE (Col 6 Lines 21-25; the application 102 maintains one or more defined Geo-Fences, the mobile devices 103 associated with the one or more Geo-Fences and a database of BSs 108 and/or cells 109). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xiang, Etuke and De La Rue because it would enable notification or alert triggered by device enters or exit a geo-fence to ensure safety of a child or protect property (De La Rue, Col 1 Lines 5-21).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Xiang/Etuke/De La Rue teaches all of the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16, as described above. Further Xiang teaches further comprising: translating, by the geo-fencing system, the first geographic area into corresponding first Radio Access Network (RAN) identifiers (IDs) associated with a RAN of the mobile network, wherein the first RAN IDs comprises at least one first cell ID, at least one first cell sector ID, at least one first eNB ID, at least one first gNB ID, or at least one first tracking area ID (TAI) within the RAN of the mobile network that define the first geographic area of the first geo-fence (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0231; UAV A 1905 flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, with UAV A 1905 being registered to tracking area (TA) A (block 1924). The mapping between the tracking area for a UAV and the 3GPP TA may be 1:1 or 1:N, where the mapping relationship is based on an agreement between the UTM and the 3GPP network); and translating, by the geo-fencing system, the second geographic area into corresponding second Radio Access Network (RAN) identifiers (IDs) associated with the RAN of the mobile network, wherein the second RAN IDs comprises at least one second cell ID, at least one second cell sector ID, at least one second eNB ID, at least one second gNB ID, or at least one second tracking area ID (TAI) within the RAN of the mobile network that define the second geographic area of second first geo-fence (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0231; UAV A 1905 flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, with UAV A 1905 being registered to tracking area (TA) A (block 1924). The mapping between the tracking area for a UAV and the 3GPP TA may be 1:1 or 1:N, where the mapping relationship is based on an agreement between the UTM and the 3GPP network. Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203; UTM architecture 1700 includes 3GPP network exposure functions (NEFs) 1705 that support external exposure of capabilities and services of 3GPP network functions 1707 to over-the-top applications (e.g., application functions (AFs) 1709). Some of the AFs 1709 may be or implement functions of the UTM. Application programming interfaces (APIs) 1711 define interactions between NEFs 1705 and AFs 1709. Therefore the NEF may receive plurality of geo-fence subscription from plurality of UTMs)
The combination of Xiang and Etuke does not explicitly teach translating, by the geo-fencing system, the identified geographic coordinates into corresponding RAN identifiers (IDs). In an analogous art, De La Rue teaches translating, by the geo-fencing system, the identified geographic coordinates (Col 5 Lines 10-18; application 102 receives or stores one or more defined Geo-Fences. The Geo-Fence is defined in terms of real-world coordinates) into corresponding RAN identifiers (IDs) (Col 2 Lines 11-19; determines if the cell is a boundary cell. For example, the identified cell may cover a known, or can be determined, geographical area then by comparing the geographical area of the cell with the defined geographical area (e.g. the Geo-Fence) then it may be determined if a boundary (including any part of the boundary) of the defined geographical area falls within the geographical area of the identified cell). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xiang, Etuke and De La Rue because it would enable notification or alert triggered by device enters or exit a geo-fence to ensure safety of a child or protect property (De La Rue, Col 1 Lines 5-21).
Regarding claims 21, 22 and 23, the combination of Xiang/Etuke/De La Rue teaches all of the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16, as described above. Further Xiang teaches
storing, by the geo-fencing system, a first geo-fence context in a central database, wherein the first geo-fence context includes a first array of data that further includes, the first geographic coordinates defining the first geographic area of the first geo-fence, and the first application ID (Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203; some of the AF [Application Function, thus interpreted as geo-fence enabled application] may be or implemented functions of the UTM, and there are plurality of AF/UTM communicate with NEF. Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0230; UTM 1913 subscribes to a location report specifies an area or a location to monitor, and a location report of UAV ID1 in area A is sent to UTM/AF. Therefore an identifier may be associated with the AF and/or UTM in order for the NEF to provide the location report to the AF/UTM that subscribed to the service); and
storing, by the geo-fencing system, a second geo-fence context in the central database, wherein the second geo-fence context includes a second array of data that further includes, the second geographic coordinates defining the second geographic area of the second geo-fence, and the second application ID (Figure 17 and Paragraph 0203; some of the AF [Application Function, thus interpreted as geo-fence enabled application] may be or implemented functions of the UTM, and there are plurality of AF/UTM communicate with NEF. Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0230; UTM 1913 subscribes to a location report specifies an area or a location to monitor, and a location report of UAV ID1 in area A is sent to UTM/AF. Therefore an identifier may be associated with the AF and/or UTM in order for the NEF to provide the location report to the AF/UTM that subscribed to the service),
wherein determining whether the UE has entered the first geographic area or the second geographic area further comprises performing one or more lookups into at least one of the first array of data of the first geo-fence context or the second array of data of the second geo-fence context in the central database (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0229 and 0330; the NEF 1911 and AMF 1907 configured the network to monitor the specified area, and when UAV A flies into, leaves, or drops a call in the specified area, with UAV A being registered to tracking area (TA) A, the AMF detects the change associated with UAV A, and triggers location report for UE with UAV ID1 and report to NEF and the NEF report the UAV ID1 in area A to the UTM/AF. Thus at least a location of area/geofence and UTM ID is looked in order to provide the report to the appropriate UTM/AF that subscribed to the service).
In addition, De La Rue teaches storing geo-fence context in a central database, wherein the geo-fence context includes the UE ID (Col 6 Lines 21-25; the application 102 maintains one or more defined Geo-Fences, the mobile devices 103 associated with the one or more Geo-Fences and a database of BSs 108 and/or cells 109). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xiang, Etuke and De La Rue because it would enable notification or alert triggered by device enters or exit a geo-fence to ensure safety of a child or protect property (De La Rue, Col 1 Lines 5-21).
Pertinent References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kodaypak (US 9781259 B1) discloses receiving from an application server a current location request of a device and transmitting by service capability exposure function (SCEF) the location estimate, and support location-based services for visually displaying assets and geo-fencing to receive alerts if the targeted equipment and/or shipment travel outside of a given region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
/Jing Gao/
Examiner, Art Unit 2647