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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 05/08/2026 with respect to claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 19-30 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, which were necessitated by amendment.
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the 112b rejection regarding the “indication associated with the area information” has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 recites “connecting the second EAS”, it appears to omit the word “to.” The claim should recite: “connecting to the second EAS.” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under §112(b) because the claim recite “the IE” and “a third value” lack antecedent basis in the presently pending claim chain. The claims previously recite “an authorization policy IE”, and do not recite an IE and a first and second value. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 depends from canceled claim 17 and therefore does not incorporate a presently pending base claim defining the UE, the IE, or the preceding first and second values. A dependent claim must include the limitations of the claim from which it depends and add a further limitation. Claim 19 should apparently depend from claim 15, but Applicant must confirm the intended dependency. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 7-8, 14-15, and 19-30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GE et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230239675 A1; Hereinafter “GE”) in view of Adjakple et al. (U.S. 20240236835 A9; Hereinafter “Adjakple”), Takakura (U.S. 20220022128 A1; Hereinafter “Takakura”), and Karampatsis et al. (U.S. 2020/0351409 A1; Hereinafter “Karampatsis”).
As per claim 1, 8, and 15, GE teaches a processor of a user equipment (UE) configured to perform operations comprising (GE: para[72-74], “The EES may support registration of the EAS, support authentication and authorization on a terminal device (user equipment, UE) or authentication and authorization on the edge enabler client” [216-217], “may include at least one processor 1210.”):
connecting to a first edge application server (EAS) of an edge data network (EDN) (GE: fig. 1, para[73-77], “The edge application server (edge application server, EAS) indicates a server application program deployed in the edge data network…As shown in FIG. 1, a communication connection is established between the application client AC on the terminal device side and the edge application server EAS”), the connecting comprising performing a first authorization procedure (GE: fig. 1, para[74-77-], “The edge enabler client (edge enabler client, EEC) is a peer entity of the EES on the terminal device side. The EEC is configured to: register information about the EEC and information about the application client AC with the EES, perform security authentication and authorization”); and
receiving (GE: para[118-120], table 2. “The AC sends a registration request (registration request) message or a registration update request (registration update request) message to the EEC, the registration update request message carries registration information, and the registration information includes the foregoing first information….the registration information may be an AC profile, and first indication information included in the AC profile may be referred to as an application relocation delegate indication (relocation delegate indication), an application relocation license, an application relocation agent, an application relocation decision license, an application relocation decision license, an application relocation decision agent”),
GE does not explicitly teach the a packet data unit (PDU) session modification command for a PDU session comprising an authorization policy information element (IE) and a domain name system (DNS) re-solution indication from a session modification function (SMF), the PDU session modification command further comprising an indication as to whether the UE is to perform a second authorization procedure to connect to the second EAS, wherein when the authorization policy IE is set to a value of "true" the UE is to perform the second authorization procedure and when the authorization policy is set to "false" the UE is not to perform the second authorization procedure and drop the PDU session.
However, in the related art, Adjakple teaches a packet data unit (PDU) session modification command for a PDU session comprising a domain name system (DNS) re-solution indication from a session modification function (SMF) (Adjakple: fig. 6, para [ 0236-0241], “he SMF may send, to the UE, an EAS rediscovery indication which includes DNS re-resolution indication and its optional associated impact field within NAS message via a PDU Session Modification Command. The optional associated impact field may include area information, network information such as IP segment, subnet information, a list of FQDNs and/or DNS suffixes for the new edge servers(s) whose cache entries should be flushed….. In Step 4, the UE may discover new EAS using new ULCL (ULCL2) and PSA2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modify GE, as taught by Adjakple, such that the SMF transmit the PDU session modification command including an EAS re-discovery DNS re-solution indication to cause the UE to discover and connect to a second EAS, it will enhance the quality of service and maintain correct EAS connectivity as the UE moves between areas (Adjakple: para [25]).
GE in view of Adjakple does not explicitly teach the a packet data unit (PDU) session modification command for a PDU session comprising an authorization policy information element (IE), the PDU session modification command further comprising an indication as to whether the UE is to perform a second authorization procedure to connect to the second EAS, wherein when the authorization policy IE is set to a value of "true" the UE is to perform the second authorization procedure and when the authorization policy is set to "false" the UE is not to perform the second authorization procedure and drop the PDU session.
However, in the related art, Takakura teaches the PDU session modification command further comprising an indication as to whether the UE is to perform a second authorization procedure to connect to the second EAS, wherein the authorization policy (Takakura: para [337-342], [394-396] “the eleventh condition determination may be performed based on the identification information and/or the subscriber information and/or the network operator policy included in the PDU session establishment request message. For example, the eleventh condition determination may be true when the network permits the DN_A 5 authentication and/or authorization to be performed in this procedure. The eleventh condition determination may be false when the network does not permit the DN_A 5 authentication and/or authorization to be performed in this procedure”, “The SMF_A 230 starts the PDU session establishment authentication approval procedure when the eleventh condition determination is true, and omits the PDU session establishment authentication approval procedure when the eleventh condition determination is false”, [354-355], ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to further modify GE, as taught by Takakura, to determine using a binary authorization policy value whether the target access authentication or authorization procedure is to be performed, because doing so would permit the network to require authentication when permitted or necessary while omitting unnecessary authentication signaling when the procedure is not required or permitted (Takakura: para [171]).
GE in view of Adjakple in view ok Takakura does not explicitly teach a packet data unit (PDU) session modification command for a PDU session comprising an authorization policy information element (IE), drop the PDU session.
However, in the related art, Karampatsis teaches a packet data unit (PDU) session modification command for a PDU session comprising an authorization policy information element (IE) specifying required or desired UE actions, and drop the PDU session (Karampatsis: para [0107-0109], “during a PDU session establishment procedure or PDU session modification procedure, an SMF may send PDU session validity conditions to a UE. For example, the SMF may include an indication or IE in an N1 SM message transmitted to a UE (e.g., a PDU session establishment accept message and/or a PDU session modification command message). The IE may be called PDU session validity conditions and/or may include one or more parameters (e.g., allowed and/or valid location, allowed and/or valid time window, allowed and/or valid data volume, and so forth). In some embodiments, an SMF may send an indication about required and/or desired actions upon expiration of validity conditions. For example, the actions may include:…initiating a PDU session release procedure.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to further modify GE, as taught by Karampatsis, to convey the authorization decision and corresponding UE action in an information element of the PDU Session Modification Command and to cause release of the PDU session when the applicable policy does not permit continued target service access, because doing so would provide the UE with explicit session management instructions and prevent continued use of a PDU session that cannot support authorized access to the target EAS (Karampatsis: para [88-89]).
Furthermore, GE also teaches the hardware components of claims 8 and 15 such as a user equipment (UE), comprising: a transceiver configured to connect to a network; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations comprising (GE: para[216-220], “The communication apparatus 1200 may include at least one processor 1210… the communication apparatus 1200 may further include a transceiver 1230, and the communication apparatus 1200 may exchange information with another device by using the transceiver 1230”).
As per claims 7, 20, GE in view of Adjakple in view ok Takakura and Karampatsis teaches the independent claim 1. GE teaches wherein the operations further comprise connecting the second EAS (GE: para[122-123], “After the application context is relocated, the AC switches application data to the target EAS”).
As per claim 14, GE in view of Adjakple in view ok Takakura and Karampatsis teaches the independent claim 8. Adjakple teaches wherein the operations further comprise: replacing a first Uplink Classifier (UL-CL) associated with the first EAS with a second UL-CL associated with the second EAS (Adjakple: fig. 6, para [ 0236-0241], “he SMF may send, to the UE, an EAS rediscovery indication which includes DNS re-resolution indication and its optional associated impact field within NAS message via a PDU Session Modification Command. The optional associated impact field may include area information, network information such as IP segment, subnet information, a list of FQDNs and/or DNS suffixes for the new edge servers(s) whose cache entries should be flushed….. In Step 4, the UE may discover new EAS using new ULCL (ULCL2) and PSA2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modify GE, as taught by Adjakple, such that the SMF transmit the PDU session modification command including an EAS re-discovery DNS re-solution indication to cause the UE to discover and connect to a second EAS, it will enhance the quality of service and maintain correct EAS connectivity as the UE moves between areas (Adjakple: para [25]).
As per claim 19, Karampatsis teaches wherein the IE is set to a third value indicating the UE determines whether to perform the second authorization procedure based on a security policy stored in the UE (Karampatsis: para [0107-0109], “during a PDU session establishment procedure or PDU session modification procedure, an SMF may send PDU session validity conditions to a UE. For example, the SMF may include an indication or IE in an N1 SM message transmitted to a UE (e.g., a PDU session establishment accept message and/or a PDU session modification command message). The IE may be called PDU session validity conditions and/or may include one or more parameters (e.g., allowed and/or valid location, allowed and/or valid time window, allowed and/or valid data volume, and so forth). In some embodiments, an SMF may send an indication about required and/or desired actions upon expiration of validity conditions. For example, the actions may include:…initiating a PDU session release procedure.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to further modify GE, as taught by Karampatsis, to convey the authorization decision and corresponding UE action in an information element of the PDU Session Modification Command and to cause release of the PDU session when the applicable policy does not permit continued target service access, because doing so would provide the UE with explicit session management instructions and prevent continued use of a PDU session that cannot support authorized access to the target EAS (Karampatsis: para [88-89]).
As per claims 21 and 26, GE in view of Adjakple in view ok Takakura and Karampatsis teaches the independent claim 1. Adjakple teaches replacing a first Uplink Classifier (UL-CL) associated with the first EAS with a second UL-CL associated with the second EAS (Adjakple: fig. 6, para [129], “DNN Replacement rules may be part of URSP Rules. For example, the URSP rule may indicate that when a DNN is provided by the application as part of the traffic descriptor, the DNN may be replaced. The network may indicate this to the UE by including DNN(s) in both the Traffic Descriptor and RSD parts of the URSP rule. For example, the old DNN may be provided in the traffic descriptor, and the new DNN may be provided in the RSD portion of the URSP.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modify GE, as taught by Adjakple, such that the SMF transmit the PDU session modification command including an EAS re-discovery DNS re-solution indication to cause the UE to discover and connect to a second EAS, it will enhance the quality of service and maintain correct EAS connectivity as the UE moves between areas (Adjakple: para [25]).
As per claims 22 and 27, GE in view of Adjakple in view ok Takakura and Karampatsis teaches the independent claim 1. Adjakple teaches wherein the DNS re-resolution indication is associated with area information indicated by an Internet Protocol (IP) segment (Adjakple: fig. 6, para [ 0236-0241], “The optional associated impact field may include area information, network information such as IP segment, subnet information, a list of FQDNs and/or DNS suffixes for the new edge servers(s) whose cache entries should be flushed….. In Step 4, the UE may discover new EAS using new ULCL (ULCL2) and PSA2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modify GE, as taught by Adjakple, such that the SMF transmit the PDU session modification command including an EAS re-discovery DNS re-solution indication to cause the UE to discover and connect to a second EAS, it will enhance the quality of service and maintain correct EAS connectivity as the UE moves between areas (Adjakple: para [25]).
As per claims 23 and 28, GE in view of Adjakple in view ok Takakura and Karampatsis teaches the independent claim 1. Adjakple teaches wherein the DNS re-resolution indication is associated with area information indicated by subnet info (Adjakple: fig. 6, para [ 0236-0241], “The optional associated impact field may include area information, network information such as IP segment, subnet information, a list of FQDNs and/or DNS suffixes for the new edge servers(s) whose cache entries should be flushed….. In Step 4, the UE may discover new EAS using new ULCL (ULCL2) and PSA2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modify GE, as taught by Adjakple, such that the SMF transmit the PDU session modification command including an EAS re-discovery DNS re-solution indication to cause the UE to discover and connect to a second EAS, it will enhance the quality of service and maintain correct EAS connectivity as the UE moves between areas (Adjakple: para [25]).
As per claims 24 and 29, GE in view of Adjakple in view ok Takakura and Karampatsis teaches the independent claim 1. Adjakple teaches wherein the DNS re-resolution indication is associated with area information indicated by a list of fully qualified domain names (FQDNs) (Adjakple: fig. 6, para [ 0236-0241], “The optional associated impact field may include area information, network information such as IP segment, subnet information, a list of FQDNs and/or DNS suffixes for the new edge servers(s) whose cache entries should be flushed….. In Step 4, the UE may discover new EAS using new ULCL (ULCL2) and PSA2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modify GE, as taught by Adjakple, such that the SMF transmit the PDU session modification command including an EAS re-discovery DNS re-solution indication to cause the UE to discover and connect to a second EAS, it will enhance the quality of service and maintain correct EAS connectivity as the UE moves between areas (Adjakple: para [25]).
As per claims 25 and 30, GE in view of Adjakple in view ok Takakura and Karampatsis teaches the independent claim 1. Adjakple teaches wherein the DNS re-resolution indication is associated with area information indicated by a list of DNS suffixes (Adjakple: fig. 6, para [ 0236-0241], “The optional associated impact field may include area information, network information such as IP segment, subnet information, a list of FQDNs and/or DNS suffixes for the new edge servers(s) whose cache entries should be flushed….. In Step 4, the UE may discover new EAS using new ULCL (ULCL2) and PSA2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modify GE, as taught by Adjakple, such that the SMF transmit the PDU session modification command including an EAS re-discovery DNS re-solution indication to cause the UE to discover and connect to a second EAS, it will enhance the quality of service and maintain correct EAS connectivity as the UE moves between areas (Adjakple: para [25]).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 7-8, 14-15, and 19-30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GE et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230239675 A1; Hereinafter “GE”) in view of Adjakple et al. (U.S. 20240236835 A9; Hereinafter “Adjakple”), Takakura (U.S. 20220022128 A1; Hereinafter “Takakura”), Karampatsis et al. (U.S. 2020/0351409 A1; Hereinafter “Karampatsis”), and Scott et al. (U.S. Pub. 20170207999 A1; Hereinafter “Scott”).
As per claims 6, 13, G GE in view of Adjakple in view ok Takakura and Karampatsis teaches the independent claim 1.
GE in view of Adjakple in view ok Takakura and Karampatsis does not teach wherein when the authorization policy IE is set to a value of one of "preferred/null" the UE determines whether to perform the second authorization procedure based on a security policy stored locally in the UE.
However, in the related art, Scott teaches wherein when the authorization policy IE is set to a value of one of "preferred/null" the UE determines whether to perform the second authorization procedure based on a security policy stored locally in the UE (Scott: para[1748], [1762], “Force_Auth. Authentication is not always required—it is based on the required privilege of the desired route. Through the provisioning system user interface, administrators can force Gateways to always identify and authenticate users by simply checking a box. This field will display a boolean value where “1” or TRUE=box checked—user MUST be authenticated; “0” or FALSE=box not checked—authentication only when required based on privilege. For example, if using calling card numbers as the user ID, one would want to force the user to also enter their PIN (i.e. authentication). “1” would display in this field.” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to further modify GE with the authentication process of Scott, it will ensure that unauthorized access is prevented (Scott: para [659]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210136858 A1, A terminal apparatus and an apparatus in a core network exchange information indicating maintenance of a PDU session in a procedure for releasing UP resources, and thereby releases the UP resources associated with a specific PDU session while maintaining establishment of the specific PDU session..
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYDIA L NOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571)-270-5143. 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.
/L.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights