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 § 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 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.
Claims 1-11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skubic (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0191292) in view of Sengupta et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0180440).
Regarding claim 1, Skubic teaches a method implemented by a network (Figs. 2-3), the method comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a request to establish a protocol data unit (PDU) session with the network (network 13 receives request for PDU sessions from UE 10 [steps 300-301 | Paragraphs 41-42]);
determining, based on subscription data associated with the UE, an authorization for the UE to receive an edge-anchored indication from the network (based on allowed subscriptions on UE 10, network 13 determines whether to provide edge-anchored features [Paragraphs 35, 42, 47]), [
sending, based on the authorization, the edge-anchored indication to the UE (based on the authorization, the edge-anchored features are sent to the UE 10 from network 13 on an established connection [step 304 | Paragraph 44]).
However, Skubic does not explicitly mention: wherein the edge-anchored indication facilitates avoiding a UE switch of traffic from being sent via the network to being sent via a different network, the traffic associated with an edge application or an edge application server.
Sengupta teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the edge-anchored indication facilitates avoiding a UE switch of traffic from being sent via the network to being sent via a different network, the traffic associated with an edge application or an edge application server (as in Fig. 1, edge-anchored features assigned to UE 102 prevent the unnecessary switching between networks 104a,e for UE 102 when communicating with UE 100, wherein the communication is performed via edge servers/applications [Paragraph 23, 29, 36-38, 49]).
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 communication system (as taught by Skubic) by preventing communication switching via edge-anchored indicators (as taught by Sengupta) for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary usage of unreliable networks (Sengupta – Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, Skubic further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the authorization is determined from a session management (SM) field of the subscription data, wherein the SM field stores the authorization (the authorization is stored in a SM field of the subscription data [Paragraph 35]).
Regarding claim 3, Skubic further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the authorization is a first authorization that is determined from a session management (SM) field of the subscription data (the authorization is being determined from a SM field [Paragraph 35]), wherein the SM field stores a UE authorization for discovery of edge application server (EAS) via an edge application server discovery function (EASDF) (where the SM stores the authorization via a server discovery function [Paragraph 35]), wherein the UE authorization indicates the first authorization and further indicates a second authorization for the discovery of the EAS via the EASDF (where several authorizations are indicated via the server discovery function [Paragraph 35]).
Regarding claim 4, Skubic further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the authorization is determined as part of establishing the PDU session (the authorization is being determined at moment of requesting and performing the PDU session [steps 300-302]).
Regarding claim 5, Skubic further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a notification about an update to the subscription data, the update indicating that the authorization is included in the subscription data (updates of the subscription is received indicated that the authorization is included in the subscription [Paragraphs 35, 46, 50, 54]).
Regarding claim 6, Skubic further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the traffic is associated with a policy (traffic is associated with policy [Paragraphs 7-8]); and
determining that the policy indicates that the edge-anchored indication is associated with the traffic (the policy establishes that edge indicator is associated with the traffic [Paragraphs 12, 35]), wherein sending the edge-anchored indication to the UE is further based on the policy (the indicator is then associated with the policy [Paragraph 80]).
Regarding claim 7, Skubic teaches a system of a network (Figs. 2-3, 6), the system comprising:
one or more processors (processing circuitry 601); and
one or more memory storing instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors (memory 606), configure the system to:
determine that traffic between a user equipment (UE) and an edge application or an edge application server is associated with a policy (it is established an interexchange of communication (traffic) between UE 10 and network 13 by means of edge services associated with policies [step 300-301 | Paragraphs 41-42]);
determine that the policy indicates that an edge-anchored indication is associated with the traffic, [
send the edge-anchored indication to the UE (based on the authorization, the edge-anchored features are sent to the UE 10 from network 13 on an established connection [step 304 | Paragraph 44]).
However, Skubic does not explicitly mention: wherein the edge-anchored indication facilitates avoiding a UE switch of the traffic from being sent via the network to being sent via a different network.
Sengupta teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the edge-anchored indication facilitates avoiding a UE switch of the traffic from being sent via the network to being sent via a different network (as in Fig. 1, edge-anchored features assigned to UE 102 prevent the unnecessary switching between networks 104a,e for UE 102 when communicating with UE 100, wherein the communication is performed via edge servers/applications [Paragraph 23, 29, 36-38, 49]).
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 communication system (as taught by Skubic) by preventing communication switching via edge-anchored indicators (as taught by Sengupta) for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary usage of unreliable networks (Sengupta – Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 8, Skubic further teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more memory store further instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the system to:
determine, based on subscription data associated with the UE, an authorization for the edge-anchored indication (traffic is associated with policy [Paragraphs 7-8]), wherein sending the edge-anchored indication to the UE is further based on the authorization (the indicator is then associated with the policy [Paragraph 80]).
Regarding claim 9, Skubic further teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the authorization is determined from a session management (SM) field of the subscription data, wherein the SM field stores the authorization (the authorization is stored in a SM field of the subscription data [Paragraph 35]).
Regarding claim 10, Skubic further teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the authorization is a first authorization that is determined from a session management (SM) field of the subscription data (the authorization is being determined from a SM field [Paragraph 35]), wherein the SM field stores a UE authorization for discovery of edge application server (EAS) via an edge application server discovery function (EASDF) (where the SM stores the authorization via a server discovery function [Paragraph 35]), wherein the UE authorization indicates the first authorization and further indicates a second authorization for the discovery of the EAS via the EASDF (where several authorizations are indicated via the server discovery function [Paragraph 35]).
Regarding claim 11, Skubic further teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the authorization is determined as part of establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session between the UE and the network (the authorization is being determined at moment of requesting and performing the PDU session [steps 300-302]).
Regarding claim 19, Skubic teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions (Figs. 2-3), that when executed on a network, cause the network to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a request to establish a protocol data unit (PDU) session with the network (network 13 receives request for PDU sessions from UE 10 [steps 300-301 | Paragraphs 41-42]);
determining, based on subscription data associated with the UE, an authorization for the UE to receive an edge-anchored indication from the network (based on allowed subscriptions on UE 10, network 13 determines whether to provide edge-anchored features [Paragraphs 35, 42, 47]), [
sending, based on the authorization, the edge-anchored indication to the UE (based on the authorization, the edge-anchored features are sent to the UE 10 from network 13 on an established connection [step 304 | Paragraph 44]).
However, Skubic does not explicitly mention: wherein the edge-anchored indication facilitates avoiding a UE switch of traffic from being sent via the network to being sent via a different network, the traffic associated with an edge application or an edge application server.
Sengupta teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the edge-anchored indication facilitates avoiding a UE switch of traffic from being sent via the network to being sent via a different network, the traffic associated with an edge application or an edge application server (as in Fig. 1, edge-anchored features assigned to UE 102 prevent the unnecessary switching between networks 104a,e for UE 102 when communicating with UE 100, wherein the communication is performed via edge servers/applications [Paragraph 23, 29, 36-38, 49]).
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 communication system (as taught by Skubic) by preventing communication switching via edge-anchored indicators (as taught by Sengupta) for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary usage of unreliable networks (Sengupta – Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 20, Skubic further teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage of claim 19, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining that the traffic is associated with a policy (traffic is associated with policy [Paragraphs 7-8]); and
determining that the policy indicates that the edge-anchored indication is associated with the traffic (the policy establishes that edge indicator is associated with the traffic [Paragraphs 12, 35]), wherein sending the edge-anchored indication to the UE is further based on the policy (the indicator is then associated with the policy [Paragraph 80]).
Claims 12-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skubic (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0191292) in view of Sengupta et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0180440) and further in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0357301).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Skubic and Sengupta teaches all the limitations recited in claim 7.
However, the combination of Skubic and Sengupta does not explicitly mention: wherein the policy is determined from policy and charging control (PCC) rule information that includes an indication of using an edge enabler for a protocol data unit (PDU) session, wherein the determining that the policy indicates that the edge-anchored indication is associated with the traffic is based on the indication.
Li teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the policy is determined from policy and charging control (PCC) rule information that includes an indication of using an edge enabler for a protocol data unit (PDU) session, wherein the determining that the policy indicates that the edge-anchored indication is associated with the traffic is based on the indication (PCC determines the policy included in the PDU session, thus determining an association between the edge anchored indicator with the traffic [Paragraphs 6-12]).
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 communication system (as taught by Skubic) by preventing communication switching via edge-anchored indicators (as taught by Sengupta) by implementing PCC (as taught by Li) for the purpose of prioritizing networks (Li – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 13, Li further teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the indication is included in a policy control section or an application function (AF) influenced traffic steering enforcement control section of the PCC rule information (the indicator is included in the AF influencing steering enforcement [Paragraphs 6-12, 76-77]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Skubic and Sengupta teaches all the limitations recited in claim 7.
However, the combination of Skubic and Sengupta does not explicitly mention: wherein the policy is determined from policy and charging control (PCC) rule information, and wherein the one or more memory store further instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the system to: receive a first request of the edge application or the edge application server indicating that the traffic is to be edge-anchored; and update, based on the first request, the PCC rule information by at least updating the policy to indicate that the edge-anchored indication is associated with the traffic.
Li teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the policy is determined from policy and charging control (PCC) rule information (PCC determines the policy included in the PDU session, thus determining an association between the edge anchored indicator with the traffic [Paragraphs 6-12]), and wherein the one or more memory store further instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the system to:
receive a first request of the edge application or the edge application server indicating that the traffic is to be edge-anchored (PCC determines the policy included in the PDU session, thus determining that the server is to be anchored [Paragraphs 6-12]); and
update, based on the first request, the PCC rule information by at least updating the policy to indicate that the edge-anchored indication is associated with the traffic (thus the PCC rule is updated based on the request [Paragraphs 6-12]).
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 communication system (as taught by Skubic) by preventing communication switching via edge-anchored indicators (as taught by Sengupta) by implementing PCC (as taught by Li) for the purpose of prioritizing networks (Li – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 17, Li further teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the one or more memory store additional instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the system to: receive a second request of the edge application or the edge application server indicating that the traffic is to no longer be edge-anchored (no longer anchoring the edges is then received [Paragraphs 6-12]); and update, based on the second request, the PCC rule information by at least updating the policy to indicate that the traffic is no longer edge-anchored (the indicator is then updated establishing the no need of the anchor being edged [Paragraphs 6-12]).
Regarding claim 18, Li further teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the one or more memory store additional instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the system to: verify that the first request is received from an application function (AF) authorized to indicate that the traffic is to be edge-anchored (the request is verified that was sent by an AF [Paragraphs 6-12]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skubic (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0191292) in view of Sengupta et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0180440) and further in view of Qiao et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0109823).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Skubic and Sengupta teaches all the limitations recited in claim 7.
However, the combination of Skubic and Sengupta does not explicitly mention: wherein the policy associates the edge-anchored indication with the traffic by at least using a service data flow (SDF) filter.
Qiao teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the policy associates the edge-anchored indication with the traffic by at least using a service data flow (SDF) filter (SDF filter is being used for the policies [Paragraphs 42, 48, 50, 56-57, 69, 79, 122]).
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 communication system (as taught by Skubic) by preventing communication switching via edge-anchored indicators (as taught by Sengupta) by implementing SDF filter (as taught by Qiao) for the purpose of using only desired services (Qiao – Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 15, Qiao further teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the one or more memory store further instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the system to:
determine a match between the traffic and the SDF filter (match between traffic and filter is determined [Paragraphs 42, 48, 50, 56-57, 69, 79, 122]); determine that the policy is applicable based on the match (that the policy is applicable based on the matching [Paragraphs 42, 48, 50, 56-57, 69, 79, 122]); and determine, from subscription data associated with the UE and based on the policy being applicable, an authorization for the edge-anchored indication (authorization is then determined [Paragraphs 42, 48, 50, 56-57, 69, 79, 122]), wherein sending the edge-anchored indication to the UE is further based on the authorization (and the sending the indicator to the UE is based on the authorization[Paragraphs 42, 48, 50, 56-57, 69, 79, 122]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
January 24, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633