0DETAILED 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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Continuation filed on 12/05/2025.
In the instant Amendment, claims 2-3, 9, 11-12, and 16 have been cancelled; claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended; and claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13-15, and 17-20 have been examined and are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 12/05/2025 with respect to claims 1-20 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In light of Applicant’s amendments, 112b rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
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.
Regarding claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13-15, and 17-20, claims 1, 8 and 15 recites " wherein the indication is associated with area information indicated by an Internet Protocol (IP) segment in” claims 1 and 8, “Subnet info” in claim 15. It is unclear which indication “the indication” is referring to, as the claims recite a DNS re-resolution indication and an indication from the PDU session modification command. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claims with reasonable certainty.
Claims 4-7, 10, 13-14, and 17-20, are rejected as being dependent of claims 1, 8 and 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 (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, 4, 7-8, 10, 14-15, 18, and 20, 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 Shan et al. (U.S. 20210226914 A1A; Hereinafter “Shan”), Ferdi et al. (U.S. 20240305980 A1; Hereinafter “Ferdi”), and Kim et al. (U.S. 20220191100 A1; Hereinafter “Kim”).
As per claim 1 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”);
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 comprising a domain name system (DNS) re-solution indication from a session modification function (SMF), PDU session modification command further comprise an indication as to whether the UE is to perform a second authorization procedure to connect to the second EAS, wherein the indication is associated with area information indicated by an Internet Protocol (IP) segment.
However, in the related art, Shan teaches a packet data unit (PDU) session modification command comprising a domain name system (DNS) re-solution indication from a session modification function (SMF) (Shan: fig. 1, para[ 96], [102-108], “when the SMF detects the need to redirect the UE, to a new EAS, it sends a DNS re-resolution indication to the UE in a NAS SM message. The UE may then initiate DNS resolution based on the received indication. In some embodiments, the NAS SM Message is a PDU Session Modification Command message. In some aspects, a list of selected FQDNs corresponding to EASs is further included in the NAS SM message”).
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 using the transmission of a DNS re-solution indication in a PDU Session Modification Command based on UE mobility of Shan, it will enhance the quality of service and maintain correct EAS connectivity as the UE moves between areas (Shan: para [5]).
GE in view of Shan does not explicitly teach 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 indication is associated with area information indicated by an Internet Protocol (IP) segment.
However, in the related art, Ferdi 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 (Ferdi: para[174], “the SMF may send an NAS command message (e.g., PDU session modification command) to the relay indicating the result of the PDU session secondary re-authentication and/or re-authorization. The message may include one or more of an identity of the remote WTRU (e.g., a GPSI, a remote user ID, and/or the like) and/or an EAP success or failure message. The message may include different authorization information (e.g., new authorization information) associated with the remote WTRU connection in the case of successful secondary re-A&A”).
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 update the modified GE with the indication of new authorization of Ferdi, it will enhance security by verifying user identity after a server change, ensuring only authorized access and mitigating potential risks from compromised sessions or unauthorized access (Ferdi: para [6]).
GE in view of Shan and Ferdi does not explicitly teach wherein the indication is associated with area information indicated by an Internet Protocol (IP) segment.
However, in the related art, Kim teaches wherein the indication is associated with area information indicated by an Internet Protocol (IP) segment of claim 9 and by subnet info of claim 15 (Kim: fig. 1, 5, para [45], “The DNS server 154 may exist in every edge network covering a specific area or one DNS server may exist in the entire MEC system. When the DNS server 154 for MEC exists in every edge network covering a specific area, the UE 120 should know information on the DNS server 154 for the corresponding location, which may operate according to an embodiment of the disclosure.”, para [162-163], “the SMF 113 determining that the MEC service can be provided to the corresponding UE 120 may update a value required for the MEC service (information on the DNS server 154 or information on the MEC configuration server 153) in the PCO value and transmit the same to the UE 120 in which case an SM NAS message corresponding to a PDU session modification command may be used.”, para[60-62], “The information for the MEC service may be a DNS server address that should be accessed when the UE 120 uses the MEC service through the corresponding PDU session….The address of the DNS server 154 or the address of the MEC configuration server 153 may follow a format of the IP address”,).
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 update the modified GE with Kim PDU session modification command information associating IP address server information with area information, it will improve accuracy and efficiency of edge server discovery (Kim: para [05], [22]).
Furthermore, Qian 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 claim 4, 10, 17, GE in view of Shan, Ferdi and Kim teaches the independent claim 1. GE teaches wherein the PDU session modification command comprises an authorization policy information element (IE) (GE: para[113-114], table 1. “the registration update request message carries registration information, and the registration information includes the foregoing first information. Optionally, the registration information may be an EAS profile, and the first information included in the EAS profile may be referred to as an application relocation delegate indication (relocation delegate indication)…the EAS profile includes content shown in the following Table 1…. IE may also indicate whether the continuity support EAS supports relocation of an application context. EAS DNAI Optional Indicates a DAI associated with the EAS. This IE O may be used as a potential location of an application.”)
As per claims 7, 20, GE in view of Shan, Ferdi and Kim 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 8, GE teaches a processor of a session modification function (SMF) configured to perform operations comprising (GE: para[72-74], [97], “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”, “where the core network element may be a network exposure function (network expose function, NEF) network element, a session management function (session management function, SMF) network element, or the like”):
determining that a connection between a user equipment (UE) and a first edge application server (EAS) of an edge data network (EDN) is to be switched to a connection between the UE and a second EAS of the 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”, para[116-117], [119-123], “When an event that triggers relocation of the application context occurs, if the EEC determines, based on the registration information of the AC, that the relocation of the application context is delegated to the EEC….the EEC may determine to relocate the application context, and perform a related operation of relocating the application context….After the application context is relocated, the AC switches application data to the target EAS”); and
sending (GE: para[118-120], [132-133], 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 PDU session modification command, the PDU session modification command comprising a domain name system (DNS) re-solution indication and an indication as to whether the UE is to perform a second authorization procedure to connect to the second EAS.
However, in the related art, Shan teaches PDU session modification command, the PDU session modification command comprising a domain name system (DNS) re-solution indication (Shan: fig. 1, para[ 96], [102-108], “when the SMF detects the need to redirect the UE, to a new EAS, it sends a DNS re-resolution indication to the UE in a NAS SM message. The UE may then initiate DNS resolution based on the received indication. In some embodiments, the NAS SM Message is a PDU Session Modification Command message. In some aspects, a list of selected FQDNs corresponding to EASs is further included in the NAS SM message”).
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 using the transmission of a DNS re-solution indication in a PDU Session Modification Command based on UE mobility of Shan, it will enhance the quality of service and maintain correct EAS connectivity as the UE moves between areas (Shan: para [5]).
GE in view of Shan does not explicitly teach 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 indication is associated with area information indicated by an Internet Protocol (IP) segment.
However, in the related art, Ferdi 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 (Ferdi: para[174], “the SMF may send an NAS command message (e.g., PDU session modification command) to the relay indicating the result of the PDU session secondary re-authentication and/or re-authorization. The message may include one or more of an identity of the remote WTRU (e.g., a GPSI, a remote user ID, and/or the like) and/or an EAP success or failure message. The message may include different authorization information (e.g., new authorization information) associated with the remote WTRU connection in the case of successful secondary re-A&A”).
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 update the modified GE with the indication of new authorization of Ferdi, it will enhance security by verifying user identity after a server change, ensuring only authorized access and mitigating potential risks from compromised sessions or unauthorized access (Ferdi: para [6]).
GE in view of Shan and Ferdi does not explicitly teach wherein the indication is associated with area information indicated by an Internet Protocol (IP) segment.
However, in the related art, Kim teaches wherein the indication is associated with area information indicated by an Internet Protocol (IP) segment of claim 9 and by subnet info of claim 15 (Kim: fig. 1, 5, para [45], “The DNS server 154 may exist in every edge network covering a specific area or one DNS server may exist in the entire MEC system. When the DNS server 154 for MEC exists in every edge network covering a specific area, the UE 120 should know information on the DNS server 154 for the corresponding location, which may operate according to an embodiment of the disclosure.”, para [162-163], “the SMF 113 determining that the MEC service can be provided to the corresponding UE 120 may update a value required for the MEC service (information on the DNS server 154 or information on the MEC configuration server 153) in the PCO value and transmit the same to the UE 120 in which case an SM NAS message corresponding to a PDU session modification command may be used.”, para[60], “The information for the MEC service may be a DNS server address that should be accessed when the UE 120 uses the MEC service through the corresponding PDU session….The address of the DNS server 154 or the address of the MEC configuration server 153 may follow a format of the IP address”,).
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 update the modified GE with Kim PDU session modification command information associating IP address server information with area information, it will improve accuracy and efficiency of edge server discovery (Kim: para [05], [22]).
As per claim 14, GE in view of Shan, Ferdi and Kim teaches the independent claim 8. Shan 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 (Shan: para[101-108], “For example, the trigger may be based on detecting the UE has moved to a different cell (or geographic location). When the UE moves to a new location, the ULCL UPF may be changed. As a consequence, the DNAI and/or the local DNS server (in case local DNS is deployed in a local data network) may also be changed, which may lead to a further change of the EAS (e.g., from the first EAS 510 to another EAS)…. the UE receives the IP address of the second EAS 516. The UE may then establish a second data path 528 with the second EAS 516 via the second ULCL 512 and the second PSA 514.”).
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 update the modified GE with the uplink process of Shan, it will enabling selective routing of uplink traffic, allowing for efficient traffic management and optimization for specific applications (Scott: para [48]).
Claims 5-6, 13, 19, 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 Shan et al. (U.S. 20210226914 A1; Hereinafter “Shan”), Ferdi et al. (U.S. 20240305980 A1; Hereinafter “Ferdi”), Kim et al. (U.S. 20220191100 A1; Hereinafter “Kim”), and Scott et al. (U.S. Pub. 20170207999 A1; Hereinafter “Scott”).
As per claims 5, 19, GE in view of Shan, Ferdi and Kim teaches the dependent claim 4.
GE in view of Shan, Ferdi and Kim does not teach wherein the IE is set to a value of "true" indicating the UE is to perform the second authorization/authentication procedure or "false" indicating the UE is not to perform the second authorization/authentication procedure.
However, in the related art, Scott teaches wherein the IE is set to a value of "true" indicating the UE is to perform the second authorization procedure or "false" indicating the UE is not to perform the second authorization procedure (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 have update the modified GE with the authentication process of Scott, it will ensure that unauthorized access is prevented (Scott: para [659]).
As per claims 6, 13, GE in view of Shan, Ferdi and Kim teaches the dependent claim 4.
GE in view of Shan, Ferdi and Kim does not teach wherein the IE is set to a value of one of (a) "required" indicating the UE is to perform the second authorization procedure, (b)or "not needed" indicating the UE is not to perform the second authorization/authentication procedure, or (c) "preferred/null" indicating the UE determines whether to perform the second authorization/authentication procedure based on a security policy stored in the UE.
However, in the related art, Scott teaches wherein the IE is set to a value of one of (a) "required" indicating the UE is to perform the second authorization procedure, (b)or "not needed" indicating the UE is not to perform the second authorization procedure, or (c) "preferred/null" indicating the UE determines whether to perform the second authorization procedure based on a security policy stored 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 have update the modified GE with the authentication process of Scott, it will ensure that unauthorized access is prevented (Scott: para [659]).
Conclusion
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