DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended the following:
Claims: 1, 8 and 21 have been amended.
Claims: 2-7, 22-27 and 30 have not been amended.
Claims: 10-20 have been cancelled.
Claims: 8-9, 28-29 and 31 have been withdrawn.
EXAMINER’S NOTES:
The examiner notes that the applicant’s current amendments filed on 03/16/26 has changed the scope of the claims and necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented here.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9, 28-29 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8-9, 28-29 and 31 each currently recites the “Withdrawn” status identifiers which is due to the claims being withdrawn from consideration as indicated on page 2 of the previous Office Action filed on 12/30/25 which is in response to the Applicant’s previous election without traverse of Invention Group l corresponding to claims 1-7, 21-27 and 30 as indicated on page 2 of the Applicant’s Response filed on 11/11/25.
In addition, applicant has also clearly indicated on page 7, line 7 of the Applicant’s Response filed on 03/16/26 that said claims are currently withdrawn from consideration by reciting “claims 8-9, 28-29 and 31 have been withdrawn from consideration”.
However, Claim 8 also recites a “Currently Amended” status identifier with a corresponding amendments that amends claim 8 from being a previous independent claim to now being dependent upon independent claim 1 (i.e. “The ECS information processing method according to claim 1, wherein …”) which may provide some confusion as to whether claims 8-9, 28-29 and 31 should be “Withdrawn” or whether said claims should now be part of the elected invention group and as such, for the purpose of clarity and to prevent confusion, the examiner requests the applicant to more clearly indicate as to the status of said claims via either amending the status identifier or amending the dependency of claim 8.
Claims 9, 28-29 and 31 are dependent upon claim 8 and would also inherit the same issues as those of claim 8 for the same reasons as indicated above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments filed 03/16/26 with regards to claims 1-7, 21-27 and 30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The applicant argues that … These rejections are respectfully traversed. Representative claim 1 as amended recites an Edge Configuration Server (ECS) information processing method, comprising: determining, by a Session Management Function (SMF), first ECS configuration information in accordance with information about a service range of an ECS. Specifically, the first ECS configuration information comprises at least one of an address of the ECS, the service range of the ECS, or attribute information about the ECS. (Emphasis Added) … Firstly, … In contrast, the claimed invention enables selection of an edge configuration server with higher data transmission efficiency for the terminal device. In the ECS determination according to the claimed invention, compared with the way of determining the ECS based on considering the PLMN information to which the terminal device is currently connected, a more flexible ECS selection method may result. Specifically, not only the ECS serving within the same PLMN can be selected for providing service to the terminal device, but also edge enabler servers located in other PLMNs can be selected for serving the terminal device, provided that the selected ECS falls within a specific service range. Secondly, compared with Hu, the claimed invention for determining a suitable Edge Configuration Server (ECS) based on the service range of the ECS is based on the following considerations: the edge configuration server may not only be provided by network operators but also by third parties (such as Tencent, Alibaba, Huawei, etc.). Specifically, the service range of such third-party providers often does not cover an entire PLMN, or it may be a combination of partial areas of multiple PLMNs (depending on the contractual agreements with network operators). Therefore, the service range represents one of the most critical factors in ECS selection. Regarding this point, Hu provides no teachings whatsoever. That is to say, the invention taught in Hu cannot be applied to scenarios where services are jointly provided by network operators and third parties. In addition, as taught by Hu, it actually taught away from the claimed invention, by teaching that inter-PLMN ECS selection is NOT good. Thirdly, the aforementioned differences are not obvious. In the 3GPP technical field, selecting an Edge Configuration Server (ECS) based on either the service range of the ECS or the PLMN information to which the terminal device is currently connected will yield substantially different results. Specifically, and as would be understood by a person skilled in the art, when choosing an ECS based on the PLMN information to which the terminal device is currently connected, selecting an ECS that is closer to the user (i.e., within the same PLMN) typically reduces latency and improves quality of service (QoS). Users typically expect to obtain optimal experience from edge computing services provided by their own operators. Therefore, selecting servers associated with their PLMN(s) can be advantageous. Additionally, different PLMNs may have distinct data privacy and security policies. By selecting appropriate ECSs based on the PLMN to which the terminal device is connected, compliance with local laws and regulations as well as the security requirements of network operators can be ensured. In contrast, according to the claimed invention, the service range of the ECS determines both the quantity and type of computing and storage resources that can be allocated to the terminal device. Different edge configuration servers may provide different services and functionalities. Therefore, if the selected server does not support a particular application or function within its service range, this may result in service unavailability or degraded performance. In other words, according to the claimed invention, selecting a suitable ECS based on the service range of the ECS may lead to inter-PLMN communication that is not recommended by Hu, because the service range of a specific ECS inherently may encompass multiple PLMNs. Such a design is particularly suitable for scenarios where services are jointly provided by network operators and third parties. Fourthly, Zhang can hardly be used to cure the above deficiency existed in Hu, because Zhang does not relate to edge configuration server at all, let alone selecting the suitable ECS on the basis of specific factor(s). Claim 1 as amended has limitations not taught by either reference, namely "determining, by a Session Management Function (SMF), first ECS configuration information in accordance with information about a service range of an ECS". For at least the above reasons, Applicant respectfully asserts that claim 1 defines over the cited art. Independent claim 21 includes similar features, and is allowable for at least similar reasons as claim 1. Dependent claims 2-9, 22-31 depend from one of independent claims 1 and 21, and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as the respective independent claim (See Pages 7-12 of Applicant’s Arguments filed 03/16/26).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments the teachings of Hu does disclose the applicant’s argued limitations of “determining, by a Session Management Function (SMF), first ECS configuration information in accordance with information about a service range of an ECS” as will be apparent in the following explanations provided below.
To begin with, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an “… In contrast, the claimed invention enables selection of an edge configuration server with higher data transmission efficiency for the terminal device. In the ECS determination according to the claimed invention, compared with the way of determining the ECS based on considering the PLMN information to which the terminal device is currently connected, a more flexible ECS selection method may result. Specifically, not only the ECS serving within the same PLMN can be selected for providing service to the terminal device, but also edge enabler servers located in other PLMNs can be selected for serving the terminal device, provided that the selected ECS falls within a specific service range… the service range of such third-party providers often does not cover an entire PLMN, or it may be a combination of partial areas of multiple PLMNs (depending on the contractual agreements with network operators) … etc.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner notes that the applicant’s various arguments against Hu are directed towards features not present or not explicitly recited within the applicant’s claimed invention and as such, said arguments are moot as the examiner is only able to examine and address features which are claimed and is not allowed to read limitations from the applicant’s specification into the claims.
Furthermore, contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the disclosure of Hu does not teach away from the use of service range to select an ECS and inter-PLMN communication, as Hu clearly discloses embodiments where inter-PLMN communication of various network operators is performed and where an ECS is selected based on the range of PLMN on which the ECS serves or supports as can be seen from the highlighted portions of Hu, Fig. 13A-13B & [0272]-[0273], [0276], [0282] & [0527] seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
620
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0272] With reference to a scenario shown in FIG. 13A, in an example, when the terminal apparatus currently accesses the VPLMN 1, a correspondence between the address information of the ECS in the second information and the identification information of the PLMN corresponding to the address information is shown in Table 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
300
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0273] It may be learned with reference to Table 3 that, because the ECS 1-1 can visit and/or manage only the EES 1-1, but cannot visit the EES 1-2 and the EES 1-3, in the second information shown in Table 3, the address information of the ECS 1-1 is corresponding only to the identification information of the HPLMN, indicating that the ECS in the HPLMN can visit and/or manage only the EES in the HPLMN. The ECS 1-3 and the ECS 3 in FIG. 13A are ECSs in another VPLMN, and do not support serving the terminal.
PNG
media_image3.png
638
797
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0276] With reference to a scenario shown in FIG. 13B, in an example, when the terminal apparatus currently accesses the VPLMN 1, a correspondence between the address information of the ECS in the second information and the identification information of the PLMN corresponding to the address information is shown in Table 4(a).
PNG
media_image4.png
316
693
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0282] For the scenario in FIG. 13B, the terminal apparatus is currently in the roaming state, and the terminal apparatus is located in the VPLMN 1. That is, the PLMN currently accessed by the terminal apparatus is the VPLMN 1. With reference to Table 4(a), determined edge configuration servers corresponding to the identification information of the PLMN currently accessed by the terminal apparatus are the ECS 1-1 and the ECS 2. The core network element may determine either of the ECS 1-1 and the ECS 2 as the first edge configuration server. Alternatively, a plurality of ECSs may be determined as first edge configuration servers, which are randomly selected by the terminal or selected based on information such as the home operator or a service type.
[0527] Optionally, in this embodiment of this application, the V-SMF may further include, in the third information, address information of an ECS that is determined by the V-SMF and that supports serving the terminal apparatus and identification information (referred to as fourth information) of a PLMN corresponding to the address information, and send the third information to the terminal apparatus via the V-AMF. The V-SMF includes the fourth information in the third information as a supplement to the third information, to avoid missing of an ECS when the third information cannot cover all ECSs that support serving the terminal apparatus.
As can be seen from the highlighted portions of Hu seen above, Hu, Fig. 13A & [0272]-[0273] discloses With reference to a scenario shown in FIG. 13A, in an example, when the terminal apparatus currently accesses the VPLMN 1, a correspondence between the address information of the ECS in the second information and the identification information of the PLMN corresponding to the address information is shown in Table 3 and discloses It may be learned with reference to Table 3 that, because the ECS 1-1 can visit and/or manage only the EES 1-1, but cannot visit the EES 1-2 and the EES 1-3, in the second information shown in Table 3, the address information of the ECS 1-1 is corresponding only to the identification information of the HPLMN, indicating that the ECS (i.e. reads on of the ECS) in the HPLMN can visit and/or manage only the EES in the HPLMN (i.e. reads on service range). The ECS 1-3 and the ECS 3 in FIG. 13A are ECSs in another VPLMN, and do not support serving the terminal which clearly indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize and find obvious that the second information of Hu includes service range information of the ECS which are indicated by the ECS address information and corresponding PLMN identification information that each corresponds to its own different mobile network operators MNOs.
In addition, Hu, Fig. 13B & [0282] discloses For the scenario in FIG. 13B, the terminal apparatus is currently in the roaming state, and the terminal apparatus is located in the VPLMN 1. That is, the PLMN currently accessed by the terminal apparatus is the VPLMN 1. With reference to Table 4(a) (i.e. reads on in accordance with information about a service range of an ECS), determined edge configuration servers corresponding to the identification information of the PLMN currently accessed by the terminal apparatus are the ECS 1-1 and the ECS 2. The core network element may determine (i.e. reads on determining) either of the ECS 1-1 and the ECS 2 as the first edge configuration server (i.e. reads on first ECS configuration information) and Hu, Fig. 13B & [0276] & Table 4(b) discloses With reference to a scenario shown in FIG. 13B, in an example, when the terminal apparatus currently accesses the VPLMN 1, a correspondence between the address information of the ECS in the second information and the identification information of the PLMN corresponding to the address information is shown in Table 4(a) and Fig. 13B & Table 4(a) shows the address information of ECS 1-1 corresponds to identification information of both HPLMN and VPLMN1 (i.e. reads on service range) and Hu, [0527] discloses the V-SMF may further include, in the third information, address information of an ECS that is determined (i.e. reads on determining first ECS configuration information) by the V-SMF (i.e. reads on by a SMF) and that supports serving the terminal apparatus and identification information of a PLMN corresponding to the address information which clearly indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize and find obvious that the second information of Hu that includes the service range of the ECS are utilized by the core network SMF in determining and selecting the ECS and its corresponding address information and as such reads on applicant’s argued limitations.
Therefore, the argued limitations read upon the cited references or are written broad such that they read upon the cited references, as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 21-22, 24-27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US Patent Publication 2024/0022469 herein after referenced as Hu).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 21, Hu discloses:
An Edge Configuration Server (ECS) information processing method, comprising: and A Session Management Function (SMF), comprising: a transceiver, a memory, a processor, and a program stored in the memory and executed by the processor, upon executed by the processor, the program being configured to realize an Edge Configuration Server (ECS) information processing method, the method comprising: determining, by a Session Management Function (SMF), first ECS configuration information in accordance with information (Hu, Fig. 6 & [0208] discloses as shown in Fig. 6, a specific process of determining the edge configuration server (i.e. reads on ECS information processing) includes step 601 to step 607; Hu, Fig. 6 & [0216] discloses step 605: the V-SMF determines (i.e. reads on determining), based on a local configuration, a location of the terminal apparatus, and/or the subscription information (i.e. reads on in accordance with information) of the terminal apparatus, an ECS (i.e. reads on first ECS information) that supports serving the terminal apparatus; Hu, [0142] discloses the edge configuration server ECS; Hu, [0144] discloses a session management function SMF; Hu, [0169] discloses the terminal apparatus may include a UE; Hu, [0548] discloses the processing module may be a processor or a controller, the communication module may be a transceiver and the storage module may be a memory; Hu, [0565] discloses the computer instructions are loaded and executed on a computer, all or a part of the procedures or functions according to embodiments of this application are generated and the computer instructions may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is inherent for a complex device such as the SMF to include a processor, transceiver and memory storing instructions in order to be able to perform the disclosed functionalities).
wherein the first ECS configuration information comprises at least one of an address of the ECS, (Hu, Fig. 6 & [0219] discloses step 606: the V-SMF sends, to the terminal apparatus, address information of the ECS (i.e. reads on first ECS configuration information comprises an address of the ECS) that supports serving the terminal apparatus. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “the service range of the ECS, or attribute information about the ECS”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Hu discloses in one embodiment that the ECS is determined by the SMF and the address of the ECS is transmitted to the terminal but fails to explicitly disclose that the address of the ECS is determined and that the ECS is determined based on the service range of the ECS and therefore fails to disclose in the same embodiment, the limitations of “determining, by a Session Management Function (SMF), first ECS configuration information in accordance with information about a service range of an ECS”.
In a different embodiment, Hu discloses:
determining, by a Session Management Function (SMF), first ECS configuration information (Hu, [0527] discloses the V-SMF may further include, in the third information, address information of an ECS that is determined (i.e. reads on determining first ECS configuration information) by the V-SMF (i.e. reads on by a SMF) and that supports serving the terminal apparatus and identification information of a PLMN corresponding to the address information).
in accordance with information about a service range of an ECS (Hu, Fig. 13B & [0282] discloses For the scenario in FIG. 13B, the terminal apparatus is currently in the roaming state, and the terminal apparatus is located in the VPLMN 1. That is, the PLMN currently accessed by the terminal apparatus is the VPLMN 1. With reference to Table 4(a) (i.e. reads on in accordance with information about a service range of an ECS), determined edge configuration servers corresponding to the identification information of the PLMN currently accessed by the terminal apparatus are the ECS 1-1 and the ECS 2. The core network element may determine (i.e. reads on determining) either of the ECS 1-1 and the ECS 2 as the first edge configuration server (i.e. reads on first ECS configuration information); Hu, Fig. 13B & [0276] & Table 4(a) discloses With reference to a scenario shown in FIG. 13B, in an example, when the terminal apparatus currently accesses the VPLMN 1, a correspondence between the address information of the ECS in the second information and the identification information of the PLMN corresponding to the address information is shown in Table 4(a) and Fig. 13B & Table 4(a) shows the address information of ECS 1-1 corresponds to identification information of both HPLMN and VPLMN1 (i.e. reads on service range); Hu, Fig. 13A & [0272]-[0273] discloses With reference to a scenario shown in FIG. 13A, in an example, when the terminal apparatus currently accesses the VPLMN 1, a correspondence between the address information of the ECS in the second information and the identification information of the PLMN corresponding to the address information is shown in Table 3 and discloses It may be learned with reference to Table 3 that, because the ECS 1-1 can visit and/or manage only the EES 1-1, but cannot visit the EES 1-2 and the EES 1-3, in the second information shown in Table 3, the address information of the ECS 1-1 is corresponding only to the identification information of the HPLMN, indicating that the ECS in the HPLMN can visit and/or manage only the EES in the HPLMN. The ECS 1-3 and the ECS 3 in FIG. 13A are ECSs in another VPLMN, and do not support serving the terminal; Hu, [0244] discloses In this embodiment of this application, an example in which the mobile network is a PLMN is used for description and Edge configuration server information includes identification information of the first edge configuration server and identification information of the at least one mobile network corresponding to the first edge configuration server. The edge configuration server information may be used as second information, or may be included in the second information. The identification information may be an identifier or address information, or may be other information that may indicate the edge configuration server; Hu, Fig. 6 & [0218] discloses the V-SMF determines, based on the local configuration, the location of the terminal apparatus, and the subscription information of the terminal apparatus, the ECS that supports serving the terminal apparatus. Specific information that is in the foregoing information and that is used to determine the ECS is determined based on actual situation. This is not limited in this embodiment of this application; Hu, [0413] discloses The subscription information of the terminal apparatus includes second information. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that the subscription information of the terminal being utilized by the SMF to determine the ECS and its corresponding ECS address would include second information that includes the ECS address of the ECS and its corresponding service range of PLMNs where service is supported).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hu to incorporate the teachings of the different embodiments for the purpose of providing the system with a means to determine what information to include prior to sending the message (Hu, [0527]) and conforming to the intent of the invention to modify and combine the various different embodiment (Hu, [0569] & [0571]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of an embodiment of determining ECS information as taught by Hu) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of a similar embodiment of determining ECS information with additional and/or alternative features and functionalities of the other embodiments as taught by Hu) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of an embodiment of determining ECS information (i.e. as taught by Hu) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2 and claim 22, Hu discloses:
The ECS information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: (see claim 1) and The SMF according to claim 21, wherein the method further comprises: (see claim 21).
receiving, by the SMF, subscription information about the UE from a Unified Data Management (UDM), wherein the subscription information about the UE at least comprises second ECS configuration information (Hu, Fig. 6 & [0213]-[0214] discloses step 603: The V-SMF obtains subscription information of the terminal apparatus from a UDM and discloses the subscription information of the terminal apparatus in the UDM includes identification information of an ECS that can be visited by the terminal apparatus; Hu, [0413] discloses the V-SMF sends the subscription obtaining information to the UDM, to obtain subscription information of the terminal apparatus from the UDM and the subscription information of the terminal apparatus includes address information of an edge configuration server that supports serving the terminal apparatus and identification information of a PLMN corresponding to the address information; Hu, [0144] discloses a unified data management function UDM).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 24, Hu discloses:
The ECS information processing method according to claim 2, (see claim 2) and The SMF according to claim 22 (see claim 22).
wherein the second ECS configuration information comprises at least one of an address of an ECS, (Hu, [0413] discloses the V-SMF sends the subscription obtaining information to the UDM, to obtain subscription information of the terminal apparatus from the UDM and the subscription information of the terminal apparatus includes address information of an edge configuration server that supports serving the terminal apparatus and identification information of a PLMN corresponding to the address information; Hu, Fig. 6 & [0213]-[0214] discloses step 603: The V-SMF obtains subscription information of the terminal apparatus from a UDM and discloses the subscription information of the terminal apparatus in the UDM includes identification information of an ECS that can be visited by the terminal apparatus. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “a service range of the ECS, a selection priority level of the ECS or attribute information about the ECS, and the attribute information about the ECS comprises at least one of information about a party to which the ECS belongs or an application service list”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 25, Hu discloses:
The ECS information processing method according to claim 1, (see claim 1) and The SMF according to claim 21 (see claim 21).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein the attribute information about the ECS comprises at least one of information about a party to which the ECS belongs or an application service list”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 26, Hu discloses:
The ECS information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising (see claim 1) and The SMF according to claim 21, wherein the method further comprises: (see claim 21)..
receiving, by the SMF, a session establishment request message from the UE through an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), wherein the session establishment request message comprises indication information for requesting ECS configuration information (Hu, Fig. 6 & [0209]-[0212] discloses step 601: The terminal apparatus sends session establishment request information to a V-AMF and discloses step 602: the V-AMF sends session management create context request information and for example, sends the session management create context request information by sending Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request to the V-SMF and discloses the V-SMF represents the SMF in the VPLMN, and the V-AMF represents an AMF in the VPLMN and discloses the session management create context request information may include a selected DNN, a DNN requested by the terminal apparatus; Hu, Fig. 6 & [0216] discloses step 605: the V-SMF determines, based on a local configuration, a location of the terminal apparatus, and/or the subscription information of the terminal apparatus, an ECS that supports serving the terminal apparatus; Hu, [0135] discloses edge data network EDN may be identified by a data network access identity DNAI or a data network name DNN; Hu, [0144] discloses access and mobility management function AMF).
Regarding claim 7 and claim 27, Hu discloses:
The ECS information processing method according to claim 6, further comprising: (see claim 6) and The SMF according to claim 26, wherein the method further comprises: (see claim 26).
transmitting, by the SMF, the first ECS configuration information to the UE through the AMF (Hu, Fig. 6 & [0219] discloses step 606: The V-SMF sends, to the terminal apparatus, address information of the ECS that supports serving the terminal apparatus and Fig. 6 shows step 606 having the V-SMF first sends to the V-AMF before the V-AMF sends to the terminal; Hu, [0421] discloses the V-SMF sends, to the terminal apparatus via the V-AMF, the address information of the first ECS).
Regarding claim 30, Hu discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein a computer program, wherein the computer program is executed by a processor of a Session Management Function (SMF) so as to implement steps in the Edge Configuration Server (ECS) information processing method (Hu, [0565] discloses the computer instructions are loaded and executed on a computer, all or a part of the procedures or functions according to embodiments of this application are generated and the computer instructions may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium; Hu, [0548] discloses the processing module may be a processor or a controller, the communication module may be a transceiver and the storage module may be a memory; Hu, Fig. 6 & [0208] discloses as shown in Fig. 6, a specific process of determining the edge configuration server includes step 601 to step 607; Hu, Fig. 6 & [0216] discloses step 605: the V-SMF determines, based on a local configuration, a location of the terminal apparatus, and/or the subscription information of the terminal apparatus, an ECS that supports serving the terminal apparatus; Hu, [0142] discloses the edge configuration server ECS; Hu, [0144] discloses a session management function SMF; Hu, [0169] discloses the terminal apparatus may include a UE).
according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
Claim(s) 3 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US Patent Publication 2024/0022469 herein after referenced as Hu) in view of ZHANG et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0377046 herein after referenced as Zhang).
Regarding claim 3 and claim 23, Hu discloses:
The ECS information processing method according to claim 1 (see claim 1) and The SMF according to claim 21 (see claim 21).
wherein when the SMF comprises locally-configured (Hu, Fig. 6 & [0216] discloses step 605: the V-SMF determines, based on a local configuration, a location of the terminal apparatus, and/or the subscription information of the terminal apparatus, an ECS that supports serving the terminal apparatus).
Hu discloses determining the ECS based on local configuration but fails to explicitly disclose that said local configuration is directed towards ECS configuration that has a priority level and therefore fails to disclose “SMF comprises locally-configured ECS configuration information, the locally-configured ECS configuration information has a high priority level”.
In a related field of endeavor, Zhang discloses:
SMF comprises locally-configured ECS configuration information, the locally-configured ECS configuration information has a high priority level (Zhang, [0013] discloses the SMF can send an address of a local DNS server LDNS in a MEC platform to a UE if MEC is available for the UE’s location; Zhang, [0015] discloses the SMF can send the address of multiple DNS servers such that the LDNS as primary and central DNS server as backup to the UE; Zhang, [0010]-[0012] discloses the discovery of application server becomes too complicated to be resolved by a current DNS discovery mechanism and discloses some solutions have been discussed in 3GPP, however these solutions violate a principle of request for comments RFC standards for DNS and potentially open users to cross-site scripting attacks and discloses to overcome or mitigate the at least mentioned problems or provide a useful solution, local application server discovery in edge computing may be desirable).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hu to incorporate the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of providing the system with a means to overcome or mitigate the at least mentioned problems of complicated discovery mechanisms, violation of RF standards and cross-site scripting attacks and provide a desirable useful solution of server discovery in edge computing (Zhang, [0010]-[0012]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of an determining ECS information based on the UE’s location and local configuration as taught by Hu) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of an determining ECS information based on the UE’s location and local configuration, wherein the local configuration includes local ECS information having a primary priority over other ECS information as taught by Zhang) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of an determining ECS information based on the UE’s location and local configuration (i.e. as taught by Hu & Zhang) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM EST.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights