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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 10/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 31-50 are pending. Claims 31, 41 and 50 have been amended. No claim is added or cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 31-50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 31-37, 39-47, and 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN (US 20200218590) hereinafter JIN in view of Baskaran et al. (US 20240406904) hereinafter Baskaran.
Regarding claim 31, JIN teaches a first computing platform configured for dual application registration (i.e. The first edge computing platform also needs to register an application program component instance parameter and/or communications model of the first edge computing platform, so that the application program component instance that runs on the first edge computing platform can communicate with the application program component instance that runs on the second edge computing platform by using a same parameter and/or communications model, [0157]), the first computing platform comprising: communications circuitry to communicatively couple, via a network, the first computing platform with a second computing platform and processing circuitry to (i.e. The device for managing the application program includes at least one processor, at least one communications interface, [0240] and The end edge computing platform may be connected to a default network edge computing platform, and by reporting a location of the end edge computing platform, [0169]): receive a dual application registration request from an application of the first computing platform (i.e. sending the application program component instance parameter and/or communications model of the first edge computing platform to the second edge computing platform, [0010]); map a first application profile of the application at the first computing platform to a second application profile at the second computing platform (i.e. performing, by the first edge computing platform, an adjustment on the application program component or resource scheduling on an access network based on the application program component instance parameters and/or communications models of the first edge computing platform and the second edge computing platform, [0012]).
However, JIN does not explicitly disclose Wherein the first computing platform and the second computing platform provide different types of application platforms and are deployed in separate domains; redirect the dual application registration request to the second computing platform, via the communications circuitry, on behalf of the application of the first computing platform; receive an application registration acknowledgment from the second computing platform, via the communications circuitry, in response to the redirect of the dual application registration request; and provide the application registration acknowledgment to the application received at the first computing platform.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein the first computing platform and the second computing platform provide different types of application platforms and are deployed in separate domains (i.e. perform dual registration with a European telecommunications standards institute (“ETSI”) MEC platform and third generation partnership program (“3GPP”) edge enabler server (“EES”) based on the application security credentials specific to the respective platforms, [0078]); redirect the dual application registration request to the second computing platform, via the communications circuitry, on behalf of the application of the first computing platform (i.e. the primary registration system 604 redirects the application registration request to the secondary registration system 606 on behalf of the application server 602, [0117]) and the EAS 502 instance sends a dual application registration request to the EIS 504 by setting the primary system as the EES 506 and the secondary system as the MEC platform, [0099]); receive an application registration acknowledgment from the second computing platform, via the communications circuitry, in response to the redirect of the dual application registration request (i.e. the MEC platform 508 return a secondary and/or dual application registration acknowledgement message to the EIS 504, [0108]); and provide the application registration acknowledgment to the application received at the first computing platform (i.e. the EIS 504 returns a dual application registration acknowledgement to the EAS 502 which includes a success indication, [0109]).
Based on JIN in view of Baskaran, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Baskaran to the system of JIN in order to avoid the burdensome and cumbersome of identifying an App Service.
Regarding claim 32, JIN does not explicitly disclose perform registration of the application or an update of an existing registration of the application at the first computing platform in response to the dual application registration request, the registration or the update of the existing registration occurring at the first computing platform before redirecting the dual application registration request (i.e. recording, by the first edge computing platform, the registration information of the second edge computing platform and updating the topology diagram of the managed second edge computing platform based on the registration information of the second edge computing platform, [0166]).
However, Baskaran teaches perform registration of the application or an update of an existing registration of the application at the first computing platform in response to the dual application registration request, the registration or the update of the existing registration occurring at the first computing platform before redirecting the dual application registration request (i.e. The primary registration system 604 (e.g., MEC platform) registers 612 the application server 602 (e.g., MEC application instance) as a primary registration, and sets a dual registration ID and a coordinated expiration time (e.g., considering a received expiration time if received) to be used by the primary registration system 604, [0116]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 32 are rejected in the analysis of claims 31 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 33, JIN does not explicitly disclose wherein the first computing platform is provided by a Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) Platform, wherein the second computing platform is provided by an Edge Enabler Server (EES), and wherein the application is a MEC application instance operating in the MEC Platform.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein the first computing platform is provided by a Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) Platform (i.e. primary registration system 604 (e.g., the MEC platform), [0115]), wherein the second computing platform is provided by an Edge Enabler Server (EES) (i.e. an EES as the secondary registration system, [0114]), and wherein the application is a MEC application instance operating in the MEC Platform (i.e. the MEC application instance 402 sends a dual application registration request, [0081]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 33 are rejected in the analysis of claims 31 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 34, JIN does not explicitly disclose wherein the dual application registration request is redirected to the second computing platform on behalf of the MEC application instance.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein the dual application registration request is redirected to the second computing platform on behalf of the MEC application instance (i.e. the primary registration system 604 redirects the application registration request to the secondary registration system 606 on behalf of the application server, [0117]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 34 are rejected in the analysis of claims 31 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 35, JIN does not explicitly disclose wherein the redirect of the dual application registration request to the second computing platform is provided through a Core Network operating according to a 3GPP specification.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein the redirect of the dual application registration request to the second computing platform is provided through a Core Network operating according to a 3GPP specification (i.e. The radio access network is generally communicably coupled to one or more core networks, which may be coupled to other networks, [0050], the wireless communication system 100 is compliant with NR protocols standardized in third generation partnership project (“3GPP”), [0051] and [0078]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 35 are rejected in the analysis of claims 31 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 36, JIN teaches wherein the MEC platform operates in a MEC system according to a European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) MEC specification (i.e. the European telecommunications standards institute (ETSI) defines an application scenario and a platform system architecture that are of the MEC, [0004]).
Regarding claim 37, JIN does not explicitly disclose wherein the first computing platform is provided by an Edge Enabler Server (EES), wherein the second computing platform is provided by a Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) Platform, wherein the application is an application instance operating an Edge Application Server (EAS), wherein the dual application registration request includes data for the first application profile, and wherein the EES and the EAS operate according to a 3GPP EDGEAPP specification.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein the first computing platform is provided by an Edge Enabler Server (EES), wherein the second computing platform is provided by a Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) Platform (i.e. there may be an interworking framework for dual registration with an EES as a primary registration system and an MEC platform as a secondary registration system, [0097]), wherein the application is an application instance operating an Edge Application Server (EAS) (i.e. the EAS 502 instance sends a dual application registration request to the EIS 504 by setting the primary system as the EES 506 and the secondary system as the MEC platform 508, [0099]), wherein the dual application registration request includes data for the first application profile (i.e. The dual registration request may include: an application profile, primary security credentials of the EAS 502 (e.g., specific to the EES 506 platform), [0099]), and wherein the EES and the EAS operate according to a 3GPP EDGEAPP specification (i.e. 3GPP EES pairing information and corresponding service capability information; 2) the application server such as EAS, [0078]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 37 are rejected in the analysis of claims 31 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 39, JIN does not explicitly disclose wherein the dual application registration request received from the application includes the first application profile and wherein the application registration acknowledgment identifies a communication endpoint of the second computing platform.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein the dual application registration request received from the application includes the first application profile (i.e. the transmitter 310 transmits, to a primary dual registration system, a first request message including: an application profile, [0072]), and wherein the application registration acknowledgment identifies a communication endpoint of the second computing platform (i.e. dual application registration acknowledgement message to the EIS 404. This message may include: a success indication, a secondary platform identifier, [0093]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 39 are rejected in the analysis of claims 31 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 40, JIN does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: perform authentication of the application at the first computing platform, the authentication of the application occurring at the first computing platform before redirecting the dual application registration request; wherein, in response to the redirecting of the dual application registration request to the second computing platform, the second computing platform performs authentication of the application at the second computing platform.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: perform authentication of the application at the first computing platform, the authentication of the application occurring at the first computing platform before redirecting the dual application registration request (i.e. The MEC platform 406 registers 416 the MEC application instance 402 (e.g., as a primary registration) by verifying the authorization based on the primary security credentials, [0086]); wherein, in response to the redirecting of the dual application registration request to the second computing platform, the second computing platform performs authentication of the application at the second computing platform (i.e. The EES 408 platform registers 422 the MEC application instance 402 (e.g., as a secondary registration) by verifying the authorization based on the secondary security credentials, [0092]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 40 are rejected in the analysis of claims 31 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 41-47 and 49-50, the limitations of claims 41-47 and 49-50 are similar to the limitations of claims 31-37 and 39. JIN further teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions (i.e. The memory 803 may be a read-only memory (ROM) or another type of static storage device that can store static information and an instruction, or a random access memory (RAM) or another type of dynamic storage device that can store information and an instruction, or may be an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), a compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM) or another compact disc storage medium, optical disc storage medium (including a compact disc, a laser disc, an optical disc, a digital versatile disc, a Blu-ray disc, or the like) and magnetic disk storage medium, [0242]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 41-47 and 49-50 are rejected in the analysis of claims 31-37 and 39 above, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 38 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN (US 20200218590) hereinafter JIN in view of Baskaran et al. (US 20240406904) hereinafter Baskaran and further in view of Liao et al (US 20210007166) hereinafter Liao.
Regarding claim 38, JIN in view of Baskaran teaches the limitations of claim 31 above.
However, JIN does not explicitly disclose wherein the dual application registration request is redirected to the second computing platform on behalf of the EAS.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein the dual application registration request is redirected to the second computing platform on behalf of the EAS (i.e. the EIS 504 sends a dual and/or secondary application registration request to the MEC platform 508, [0106] and the MEC platform 508 registers the EAS 502 instance (e.g., as a secondary registration) by verifying the authorization based on the secondary security credentials, [0107]), and wherein the application registration acknowledgment is generated by the MEC Platform in response to registering the EAS at the MEC Platform (i.e. the MEC platform 508 return a secondary and/or dual application registration acknowledgement message to the EIS 504, [0108]).
Based on JIN in view of Baskaran, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Baskaran to the system of JIN in order to avoid the burdensome and cumbersome of identifying an App Service.
However, JIN in view of Baskaran do not explicitly disclose a Mpl reference point.
However, Liao teaches a Mpl reference point (i.e. a MEC service that provides services to the MEC application over the Mp1 interface, [0058]).
Based on JIN in view of Baskaran and further in view of Liao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Liao to the system of JIN and Baskaran in order to improve user experience with better performance and control.
Conclusion
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 AYELE F WOLDEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5196. The examiner can normally be reached M_F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/AW/
AYELE F. WOLDEMARIAM
Examiner
Art Unit 2447
12/29/2025
/SURAJ M JOSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447