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
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0166776), hereinafter Lee.
With respect to Claim 1, Lee teaches an information processing method, comprising:
receiving, by a terminal, address information (¶ 0478, “According to an embodiment, if address information (e.g., URI or IP address) for the MEC application is requested from the client application 510, the MSE 530 may transfer the address information stored in the local DNS cache for MEC.”); and
sending, by the terminal, the address information to an application (¶ 0478, “According to an embodiment, if address information (e.g., URI or IP address) for the MEC application is requested from the client application 510, the MSE 530 may transfer the address information stored in the local DNS cache for MEC.”)
With respect to Claim 2, Lee teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the address information comprises: address information of a domain name server (¶ 0478, “According to an embodiment, if address information (e.g., URI or IP address) for the MEC application is requested from the client application 510, the MSE 530 may transfer the address information stored in the local DNS cache for MEC.”)
With respect to Claim 6, Lee teaches the method according to claim 1, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the sending the address information to an application comprises at least one of the following: storing, by the terminal, the address information in a first area, wherein the first area is a storage area of the application in an application layer; and storing, by the terminal, the address information in a second area, wherein the second area is a storage area that is corresponding to the application and that is in the terminal (¶ 0151, “According to an embodiment, the MSE 530 may set the routing table for a PDU session path to be used for each application ID or URI, and may store the routing table in a memory (e.g., memory 130 of FIG. 1 or FIG. 2).”)
With respect to Claim 7, Lee teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the application is an application in the application layer of the terminal (¶ 0130, “According to an embodiment, the electronic device 101 may include an application layer 446 (e.g., application 146 of FIG. 1) including a plurality of applications.”)
With respect to Claim 11, Lee teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the domain name server comprises at least one of the following: an edge application server discovery function (EASDF), a central domain name system DNS server, and a local DNS server (¶ 0478, “According to an embodiment, if address information (e.g., URI or IP address) for the MEC application is requested from the client application 510, the MSE 530 may transfer the address information stored in the local DNS cache for MEC.”)
With respect to Claim 18, Lee teaches a terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein when the program or instructions are executed by the processor the steps of the information processing method according to claim 1 are implemented (¶ 0062, “The processor 120 may execute, for example, software (e.g., a program 140) to control at least one other component (e.g., a hardware or software component) of the electronic device 101 coupled with the processor 120, and may perform various data processing or computation.” Also, see the rejection of claim 1)
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Deshpande et al. (U.S. 2020/0213265), hereinafter Deshpande
With respect to Claim 15, Deshpande teaches an information processing method, comprising: when a first condition is met, clearing, by a terminal, a DNS cache in the terminal (¶ 0010, “cause a device to identify a change in a network interface of the device or a change in an IP family and responsive to determining that a change in the IP family satisfies a cache flushing policy, causing the device to flush the DNS cache or at least one or more entries of the DNS cache in accordance with the DNS cache flushing policy.”)
wherein the first condition comprises at least one of the following:
the terminal has released an old IP address;
the terminal has received a newly allocated IP address (¶ 0010, “cause a device to identify a change in a network interface of the device or a change in an IP family and responsive to determining that a change in the IP family satisfies a cache flushing policy, causing the device to flush the DNS cache or at least one or more entries of the DNS cache in accordance with the DNS cache flushing policy.”)
the terminal has received an indication for releasing the old IP address; and
the terminal has sensed a change of an IP address (¶ 0010, “cause a device to identify a change in a network interface of the device or a change in an IP family and responsive to determining that a change in the IP family satisfies a cache flushing policy, causing the device to flush the DNS cache or at least one or more entries of the DNS cache in accordance with the DNS cache flushing policy.”)
With respect to Claim 16, Deshpande teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the IP address comprises at least one of the following: an Internet Protocol version 6 IPv6 prefix,
an IP address of the terminal (¶ 0010, “cause a device to identify a change in a network interface of the device or a change in an IP family and responsive to determining that a change in the IP family satisfies a cache flushing policy, causing the device to flush the DNS cache or at least one or more entries of the DNS cache in accordance with the DNS cache flushing policy.”),
an IP address of a PDU session, and
an IP address of a user plane function.
With respect to Claim 17, Deshpande teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the clearing a DNS cache in the terminal comprises any one of the following:
clearing, by the terminal, a DNS cache that is related to the old IP address and that is in the terminal; and
clearing, by the terminal, all DNS caches in the terminal (¶ 0010, “cause a device to identify a change in a network interface of the device or a change in an IP family and responsive to determining that a change in the IP family satisfies a cache flushing policy, causing the device to flush the DNS cache or at least one or more entries of the DNS cache in accordance with the DNS cache flushing policy.”).
With respect to Claim 19, Deshpande teaches a terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein when the program or instructions are executed by the processor, the steps of the information processing method according to claim 15 are implemented (¶ 0055, “computer 101 may include one or more processors 103, volatile memory 122 (e.g., RAM), non-volatile memory 128 (e.g., one or more hard disk drives (HDDs) or other magnetic or optical storage media, one or more solid state drives (SSDs) such as a flash drive or other solid state storage media, one or more hybrid magnetic and solid state drives, and/or one or more virtual storage volumes, such as a cloud storage, or a combination of such physical storage volumes and virtual storage volumes or arrays thereof), user interface (UI) 123, one or more communications interfaces 118, and communication bus 150.” Also, see the rejection of claim 15.)
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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, 12, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0166776), hereinafter Lee, in view of Hu et al. (U.S. 2023/0156767), hereinafter Hu.
With respect to Claim 3, Lee teaches the method according to claim 1, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the terminal, a forwarding indication; wherein the sending the address information to an application comprises:
sending, by the terminal, the address information to an application corresponding to the address information according to the forwarding indication.
Hu teaches receiving, by the terminal, a forwarding indication; wherein the sending the address information to an application comprises (¶ 0234, “the MN may include the first configuration information and the indication information #2 in an RRC message, and send the RRC message to the access stratum of the terminal device.”):
sending, by the terminal, the address information to an application corresponding to the address information according to the forwarding indication (¶ 0233 - 0234, “or another example, when the indication information #2 includes a trace ID corresponding to an application-layer measurement configuration delivered by the SN, a TCE ID corresponding to the application-layer measurement configuration delivered by the SN”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Hu in order to allow the mobile device to better handle separate configurations for the device and the upper layers as taught by the system of Hu.
With respect to Claim 4, Lee teaches the method according to claim 3, Lee fails to explicitly teach the forwarding indication comprises: an identification of the application corresponding to the address information.
Hu teaches the forwarding indication comprises: an identification of the application corresponding to the address information (¶ 0233 - 0234, “or another example, when the indication information #2 includes a trace ID corresponding to an application layer measurement configuration delivered by the SN, a TCE ID corresponding to the application-layer measurement configuration delivered by the SN”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Hu in order to allow the mobile device to better handle separate configurations for the device and the upper layers as taught by the system of Hu.
With respect to Claim 10, Lee in view of Hu teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the receiving a forwarding indication comprises: receiving, by the terminal, the forwarding indication by using at least one of the following: PDU session establishment accept and PDU Session modification accept (¶ 0143, “According to an embodiment, the client application 510 may be authenticated through the MSA (e.g., service agent) 520 that serves as a separate authentication client. According to an embodiment, the client application 510 may access a network based on a specific PDU session (e.g., MEC dedicated PDU session) through the network interface4 540, or may access the MEC application based on the existing PDU session (e.g., default PDU session) through a DNS proxy function of the MSE (e.g., service enabler) 530.”)
With respect to Claim 12, Lee teaches an information processing method, comprising:
a terminal to send received address information to an application corresponding to the address information (¶ 0478, “According to an embodiment, if address information (e.g., URI or IP address) for the MEC application is requested from the client application 510, the MSE 530 may transfer the address information stored in the local DNS cache for MEC.”)
Lee fails to explicitly teach sending, by a network-side device, a forwarding indication; wherein the forwarding indication indicates a terminal to send received address information
Hu teaches sending, by a network-side device, a forwarding indication; wherein the forwarding indication indicates a terminal to send received address information (¶ 0234, “the MN may include the first configuration information and the indication information #2 in an RRC message, and send the RRC message to the access stratum of the terminal device.”):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Hu in order to allow the mobile device to better handle separate configurations for the device and the upper layers as taught by the system of Hu.
With respect to Claim 14, Lee in view of Hu teaches the method according to claim 12, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the forwarding indication comprises: an identification of the application corresponding to the address information.
Hu teaches the forwarding indication comprises: an identification of the application corresponding to the address information (¶ 0233 - 0234, “or another example, when the indication information #2 includes a trace ID corresponding to an application layer measurement configuration delivered by the SN, a TCE ID corresponding to the application-layer measurement configuration delivered by the SN”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Hu in order to allow the mobile device to better handle separate configurations for the device and the upper layers as taught by the system of Hu.
With respect to Claim 20, Lee teaches network-side device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein when the program or instructions are executed by the processor, the steps of the information processing method according to claim 12 are implemented (¶ 0062, “The processor 120 may execute, for example, software (e.g., a program 140) to control at least one other component (e.g., a hardware or software component) of the electronic device 101 coupled with the processor 120, and may perform various data processing or computation.” Also, see the rejection of claim 12)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0166776), hereinafter Lee, in view of Hu et al. (U.S. 2023/0156767), hereinafter Hu, in view of Karampatsis (U.S. 2019/0394624)
With respect to Claim 5, Lee in view of Hu teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the identification of the application comprises at least one of the following: an application APP identification ID, a protocol data unit PDU session ID, an edge enabler client EEC ID, an application client AC ID, and an EEC provider ID.
Karampatsis teaches (¶ 0060, “An example configuration is as follows for a V2X configuration for V2X applications over Uu: V2X application ID to V2X application server address (e.g., Uu and/or RAT preference (LTE-Uu and/or NR-Uu), preemption indicator, priority).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Hu with the invention of Karampatsis to better identify the application at issue when sending data or messages to it.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0166776), hereinafter Lee, in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. 2022/0286892), hereinafter Zhang.
With respect to Claim 8, Lee teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: reporting, by the terminal, a capability indication; wherein the capability indication indicates that the terminal supports or does not support forwarding the address information to the application.
Zhang teaches reporting, by the terminal, a capability indication; wherein the capability indication indicates that the terminal supports or does not support forwarding the address information to the application (¶ 0014, “the wireless device UE first sends a capability enquiry message to request capability transfer to another wireless device UE2 (the peer UE). Followed by this, the other wireless device UE2 transmits/sends a message indicating its capabilities to the wireless device UE1 based on the received capability inquiry.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Zhang in order to better accommodate legacy UE’s within the network.
With respect to Claim 9, Lee in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the reporting a capability indication comprises: reporting, by the terminal, the capability indication by using at least one of the following: a PDU session establishment request and a PDU session modification request (¶ 0143, “According to an embodiment, the client application 510 may be authenticated through the MSA (e.g., service agent) 520 that serves as a separate authentication client. According to an embodiment, the client application 510 may access a network based on a specific PDU session (e.g., MEC dedicated PDU session) through the network interface4 540, or may access the MEC application based on the existing PDU session (e.g., default PDU session) through a DNS proxy function of the MSE (e.g., service enabler) 530.”)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0166776), hereinafter Lee, in view of Hu et al. (U.S. 2023/0156767), hereinafter Hu, in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. 2022/0286892), hereinafter Zhang.
With respect to Claim 13, Lee in view of Hu teaches the method according to claim 12, however Lee in view of Hu fails to explicitly teach wherein before the sending a forwarding indication, the method further comprises: receiving, by the network-side device, a capability indication of the terminal; wherein the capability indication indicates that the terminal supports or does not support forwarding the address information to the application; wherein the sending a forwarding indication comprises: when the capability indication indicates that the terminal supports forwarding the address information to the application, sending, by the network-side device, the forwarding indication.
Zhang teaches wherein before the sending a forwarding indication, the method further comprises: receiving, by the network-side device, a capability indication of the terminal; wherein the capability indication indicates that the terminal supports or does not support forwarding the address information to the application; wherein the sending a forwarding indication comprises: when the capability indication indicates that the terminal supports forwarding the address information to the application, sending, by the network-side device, the forwarding indication. (¶ 0014, “the wireless device UE first sends a capability enquiry message to request capability transfer to another wireless device UE2 (the peer UE). Followed by this, the other wireless device UE2 transmits/sends a message indicating its capabilities to the wireless device UE1 based on the received capability inquiry.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Zhang in order to better accommodate legacy UE’s within the network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/ANGELA NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446