Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
1. A method of application instance registration in a Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) system, the method comprising:
a. receiving, at a MEC platform device, a registration request for a first application instance;
b. determining, by the MEC platform device, that the first application instance is not presently registered
c. in response to determining that the first application instance is not presently registered, allocating, by the MEC platform device, a first application instance registration identifier for the first application instance;
d. transmitting, by the MEC platform device, the first application instance registration identifier to the first application instance;
e. and causing, by the MEC platform device, a first application instance registration notification to be sent to a MEC system-level management device.
f. by the MEC platform device
Claim 1 Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method of application instance registration in a Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) system, the method comprising: a series of steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One:
Of the above, limitation(s) 1b can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and is/are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Claim 1 Step 2A, Prong Two:
The limitation 1a amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering. 1c-e amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data outputting. These are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Limitations 1f provide mere instructions to implement the limitations which can be
performed in the human mind, i.e., the judicial exception, on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.0S(f)
Claim 1Step 2B:
The combination of these additional elements amounts to a method comprising steps which can
be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising a step of
insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, the
additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept
to the claim. Consequently, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited
judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
2. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein the MEC platform device is communicatively coupled to a MEC platform manager device.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
An integration into a practical application is not substantiated from the above. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
3. The method of claim 2,
a. wherein the MEC platform device and MEC platform manager device are communicatively coupled via an interface.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
An integration into a practical application is not substantiated from the above. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
4.The method of claim 3
a. wherein the interface comprises an Mm5 reference point.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
An integration into a practical application is not substantiated from the above. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
5. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein determining that the first application instance is not presently registered further comprises: determining, by the MEC system-level management device, that the first application instance is not presently registered by the MEC system.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
The limitation(s) can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
6. The method of claim 1
a. wherein the registration request for the first application instance comprises at least one identifier uniquely identifying the first application instance.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
An integration into a practical application is not substantiated from the above. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
7. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein determining that the first application instance is not presently registered further comprises: determining that the first application instance is not presently registered by a management and orchestration (MANO) system of the MEC system.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
The limitation(s) can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
8. The method of claim 1
a. wherein the first application instance registration notification comprises at least the first application instance registration identifier.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
An integration into a practical application is not substantiated from the above. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
9. The method of claim 8,
a. wherein the first application instance registration notification further comprises one or more additional application information fields associated with the first application instance.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
An integration into a practical application is not substantiated from the above. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
10. A method of application instance registration in a Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) system, the method comprising:
a. at a MEC platform device, a registration request for a first application instance; determining, by the MEC platform device, that the first application instance is not presently registered; in response to determining that the first application instance is not presently registered
b., causing, by the MEC platform device, a first permission request to be sent to a MEC system-level management device, wherein the first permission request is configured to request permission from the MEC system-level management device for the MEC platform device to be permitted to register the first application instance;
c. receiving, at the MEC platform device, an indication that the first permission request has been granted;
d. in response to receiving the indication that the first permission request has been granted, allocating, by the MEC platform device, a first application instance registration identifier for the first application instance;
e. transmitting, by the MEC platform device, the first application instance registration identifier to the first application instance;
f. and causing, by the MEC platform device, a first application instance registration notification to be sent to the MEC system-level management device.
g. by the MEC platform device
Of the above, limitations 10a,10d,10e,10f,10g correspond to the limitations of claim 1, therefore the same judicial exception applies.
Limitations 10b and 10c recite the additional elements which amount to mere data gathering and outputting, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements comprise mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
11. The method of claim 10,
a. wherein the MEC platform device is communicatively coupled to a MEC platform manager device.
The reasoning given for the limitations of claim 2 applies to the above limitation.
12. The method of claim 10
a. wherein determining that the first application instance is not presently registered further comprises: determining, by the MEC system-level management device, that the first application instance is not presently registered by the MEC system.
The reasoning given for the limitations of claim 5 applies to the above limitation.
13. The method of claim 10
a. wherein the registration request for the first application instance comprises at least one identifier uniquely identifying the first application instance
The reasoning given for the limitations of claim 6 applies to the above limitation.
14. The method of claim 10,
a. further comprising: causing the first permission request to be sent from the MEC system-level management device to an operator-level support device of the MEC system, wherein the MEC system-level management device is further configured to request permission from the operator-level support device for the MEC platform device to be permitted to register the first application instance.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
The limitation(s) recite(s) the additional elements which amount to mere data gathering and outputting, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements comprise mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
15. The method of claim 10,
a. wherein the first application instance registration notification comprises at least the first application instance registration identifier.
The reasoning given for the limitations of claim 8 applies to the above limitation
16. The method of claim 15,
a. wherein the first application instance registration notification further comprises one or more additional application information fields associated with the first application instance.
The reasoning given for the limitations of claim 9 applies to the above limitation.
17. The method of claim 10,
a. wherein the first application instance registration notification is further caused to be sent to an operator-level support device.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
The limitation(s) recite(s) the additional elements which amount to mere data gathering and outputting, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements comprise mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
18. The method of claim 10,
a. wherein the first application instance registration identifier is allocated by the MEC platform device before the MEC platform device causes the first permission request to be sent to the MEC system-level management device.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
The limitation(s) recite(s) the additional elements which amount to mere data gathering and outputting, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements comprise mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
19. The method of claim 10,
a. wherein the requesting of permission from the MEC system-level management device for the MEC platform device to be permitted to register the first application instance further comprises: causing, at the MEC system-level management device, any services or features required by the first application instance to be made available at the MEC platform device.
The limitation(s) recite(s) the additional elements which amount to mere data gathering and outputting, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements comprise mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
20. A device comprising:
a. a receiver; a transmitter; at least one interface; and a processor configured to perform the method of claim 1.
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception.
The limitation(s) is/are reciting generic computing components to perform steps which can be performed in the human mind, as well data gathering and outputting. This represents mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) , MPEP 2106.04(d) , 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g).
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) 1-13, 15-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20250286916 A1, MEC DUAL EDGE APP REGISTRATION ON BEHALF OF EDGE PLATFORM IN DUAL EDGE DEPLOYMENTS, Filippou et all. (Filippou hereafter )2022-11-02. In view of ETSI GS MEC 010-2, ETSI, 2022-02, (ETSI hereafter) as well as in view of TW I640216 B, CONTROLLING METHOD, NETWORK SYSTEM AND CONTROLLING PLATFORM FOR MOBILE-EDGE COMPUTING, TSAI et all. (TSAI hereafter), 2018-11-01.
Filippou teaches the following substantially as claimed:
1. A method of application instance registration in a Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) system, the method comprising:
a. receiving, at a MEC platform device, a registration request for a first application instance;
[0062] FIG. 5 shows a scenario where a MEC application instance 502 sends an application registration request to a MEC platform 504. The MEC application registration, as illustrated in FIG. 5, includes the following steps:
Filippou does not explicitly state the following limitation:
b. determining, by the MEC platform device, that the first application instance is not presently registered
TSAI does however.
Page 7, Paragraph 8: In the embodiment of FIG. 4, step S150 may further include steps S400 to S430. First, in step S400,the control platform 100 determines whether the application service program exists in the action edge cloud CL_1. When the control platform 100 determines that the application service program exists in the action edge cloud CL_1, step S410 is performed. In step S410, the control platform 100 notifies the user equipment UE_1 of the host location of at least one of the relay edge gateways CL_1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this applications filing to account for this function of determining that an application instance is not already present within the MEC system to avoid misappropriating resources.
Filippou does not teach the following limitation in its entirety.
c. in response to determining that the first application instance is not presently registered, allocating, by the MEC platform device, a first application instance registration identifier for the first application instance;
However, it does provide an element of this:
[0059] Upon receiving the registration request from the EAS 402, the EES 404 stores EAS profile information to be used during EAS discovery at a later stage. In an example, the EAS profile will contain some or all the information elements described in Table 2:
TABLE 2, List of Information Elements in EAS Profile (source: 3GPP TS 23.558),
EASID : The identifier of the EAS
Esti provides the remaining elements.
Page 7, Paragraph 8: in step S400,the control platform 100 determines whether the application service program exists in the action edge cloud CL_1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this applications filing to account for this function of determining that an application instance is not already present within the MEC system to avoid misappropriating resources.
Filippou does not teach the following limitation in its entirety.
d. transmitting, by the MEC platform device, the first application instance registration identifier to the first application instance;
However, it does provide an element of this:
[0059] Upon receiving the registration request from the EAS 402, the EES 404 stores EAS profile information to be used during EAS discovery at a later stage. In an example, the EAS profile will contain some or all the information elements described in Table 2:
TABLE 2, List of Information Elements in EAS Profile (source: 3GPP TS 23.558),
EASID : The identifier of the EAS
Esti provides the remaining elements.
Page 29: 8) The MEC platform configures the Traffic rules and DNS rules for the application instance. The MEC platform needs to wait until the application instance runs normally (e.g. the application instance state turns into the running state) to activate the traffic and DNS rules. After the application instance runs normally, the MEC platform provides the available service information to the application. The details of how the MEC application instance interacts with MEC platform and how the MEC platform handles services can be found in ETSI GS MEC 011 [17].
Filippou provides the context of application registration as well as a registration identifier. Etsi provides a transmission by the mec platform to the application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this application’s filing to modify Filippou’s design to transmit the identifier back to the application as it would allow for the application end to be made aware of its successful registration.
Filippou does not teach the following limitation in its entirety.
e. and causing, by the MEC platform device, a first application instance registration notification to be sent to a MEC system-level management device.
However, it does provide an element of this:
[0059] Upon receiving the registration request from the EAS 402,
Esti provides the remaining elements.
Page 29: 9) The MEC platform sends a configuration response to the MEC Platform Manager. 10) The MEC Platform Manager sends an instantiate application response to the MEC Orchestrator. The MEC Platform Manager includes the information of the resources allocated to the application instance to the MEC Orchestrator. 11) The MEC Orchestrator sends an instantiate application response to the OSS, returning the results of the instantiation operation. The MEC Orchestrator also returns the application instance ID to the OSS if the flow is successful. Meanwhile a notification is sent to the subscribers to the application instance operational state change notification and this application package is marked in use.
Filippou provides the context of application registration while Etsi provides a response transmission (or notification) by the mec platform to a MEC Orchestrator (sytem level management device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this application’s filing to modify Filippou’s design to transmit a first application instance registration notification to a MEC Orchestrator or system-level management device as it would allow for future comparisons to be made via such a device.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 2.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
2. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein the MEC platform device is communicatively coupled to a MEC platform manager device.
ETSI does however.
Page 28; 2) The MEC Orchestrator selects the MEC host (and corresponding MEC Platform Manager).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this application’s filing to modify Filippou’s design to transmit a first application instance registration notification to couple the MEC platform to a MEC platform manager as it would facilitate resource allocation and monitoring.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 2’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 3.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
3. The method of claim 2,
a. wherein the MEC platform device and MEC platform manager device are communicatively coupled via an interface.
ETSI does however.
Page 107: 6.3.1.1 Description: This interface allows the OSS to invoke lifecycle management operations towards the MEO/MEAO or allows the MEO to invoke lifecycle management operations towards the MEPM or allows the MEAO to invoke lifecycle management operations towards the NFVO.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this application’s filing to modify Filippou’s design to transmit a first application instance registration notification to couple the MEC platform to a MEC platform manager via an interface as it would facilitate resource allocation and monitoring.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 3’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 4.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
4.The method of claim 3
a. wherein the interface comprises an Mm5 reference point.
ETSI does however.
Page 56: 3) The MEPM-V forwards the terminate application instance request to the MEP (VNF) on Mm5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this application’s filing to modify Filippou’s design to feature an Mm5 reference point as it has established utility in facilitating communication within MEC environments.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 5.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
5. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein determining that the first application instance is not presently registered further comprises: determining, by the MEC system-level management device, that the first application instance is not presently registered by the MEC system.
TSAI does however.
Page 7, Paragraph 8: In the embodiment of FIG. 4, step S150 may further include steps S400 to S430. First, in step S400 ,the control platform 100 determines whether the application service program exists in the action edge cloud CL_1. When the control platform 100 determines that the application service program exists in the action edge cloud CL_1, step S410 is performed. In step S410, the control platform 100 notifies the user equipment UE_1 of the host location of at least one of the relay edge gateways CL_1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this applications filing to account for this function of determining that an application instance is not already present within the MEC system to avoid misappropriating resources.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 6.
Filippou teaches the following substantially as claimed:
6. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein the registration request for the first application instance comprises at least one identifier uniquely identifying the first application instance.
[0059] Upon receiving the registration request from the EAS 402, the EES 404 stores EAS profile information to be used during EAS discovery at a later stage. In an example, the EAS profile will contain some or all the information elements described in Table 2:
TABLE 2, List of Information Elements in EAS Profile (source: 3GPP TS 23.558),
EASID : The identifier of the EAS
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 7.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
7. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein determining that the first application instance is not presently registered further comprises: determining that the first application instance is not presently registered by a management and orchestration (MANO) system of the MEC system.
TSAI does however.
Page 7, Paragraph 8: In the embodiment of FIG. 4, step S150 may further include steps S400 to S430. First, in step S400 ,the control platform 100 determines whether the application service program exists in the action edge cloud CL_1. When the control platform 100 determines that the application service program exists in the action edge cloud CL_1, step S410 is performed. In step S410, the control platform 100 notifies the user equipment UE_1 of the host location of at least one of the relay edge gateways CL_1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this applications filing to account for this function of determining that an application instance is not already present within the MEC system to avoid misappropriating resources.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 8.
Filippou does not state the following limitation in its entirety:
8. The method of claim 1
a. wherein the first application instance registration notification comprises at least the first application instance registration identifier.
However, it does provide an element of this:
[0059] Upon receiving the registration request from the EAS 402, the EES 404 stores EAS profile information to be used during EAS discovery at a later stage. In an example, the EAS profile will contain some or all the information elements described in Table 2:
TABLE 2, List of Information Elements in EAS Profile (source: 3GPP TS 23.558),
EASID : The identifier of the EAS
Esti provides the remaining element.
Page 29: 9) The MEC platform sends a configuration response to the MEC Platform Manager. 10) The MEC Platform Manager sends an instantiate application response to the MEC Orchestrator. The MEC Platform Manager includes the information of the resources allocated to the application instance to the MEC Orchestrator. 11) The MEC Orchestrator sends an instantiate application response to the OSS, returning the results of the instantiation operation. The MEC Orchestrator also returns the application instance ID to the OSS if the flow is successful. Meanwhile a notification is sent to the subscribers to the application instance operational state change notification and this application package is marked in use.
It is implicit from the fact that the MEC Orchestrator goes on to return the application instance id that it was conveyed with the described response (analogous to a notification).
Filippou provides the context of application registration as well as a registration identifier. Etsi provides a response transmission (or notification) by the mec platform to a MEC Orchestrator (sytem level management device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this application’s filing to modify Filippou’s design to transmit a first application instance registration notification to a MEC Orchestrator or system-level management device as it would allow for future comparisons to be made via such a device.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 8’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 9.
Filippou does not state the following limitation in its entirety:
9. The method of claim 8,
a. wherein the first application instance registration notification further comprises one or more additional application information fields associated with the first application instance.
However, it does provide an element of this:
[0059] Upon receiving the registration request from the EAS 402, the EES 404 stores EAS profile information to be used during EAS discovery at a later stage. In an example, the EAS profile will contain some or all the information elements described in Table 2:
Esti provides the remaining element.
Page 29: 9) The MEC platform sends a configuration response to the MEC Platform Manager. 10) The MEC Platform Manager sends an instantiate application response to the MEC Orchestrator. The MEC Platform Manager includes the information of the resources allocated to the application instance to the MEC Orchestrator.
Filippou provides the context of application registration. Etsi provides a response transmission (or notification) by the mec platform to a MEC Orchestrator (sytem level management device) containing application information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this application’s filing to modify Filippou’s design to transmit a first application instance registration notification to a MEC Orchestrator or system-level management device as it would allow for future comparisons to be made via such a device.
Filippou teaches the following substantially as claimed:
10. A method of application instance registration in a Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) system, the method comprising:
c. receiving, at the MEC platform device, an indication that the first permission request has been granted;
[0069] FIG. 6 depicts a dual application registration procedure, in a scenario that is triggered by an EAS. This is depicted in FIG. 6 with the following sequence: [0070] 1. An EAS 602 determines that dual application registration to a EES 604 and to a MEC Platform 606 is desired, and the EAS 602 sends a dual application registration request to the EES 604. The request includes the EAS profile and may include a proposed expiration time for the registration. [0071] 2. The EES 604 performs an authorization check to verify whether the EAS 602 has the authorization to register on the EES 604. After the verification, the EES 604 registers the EAS 602. [0072] 3, The EES 604 sends an application registration request on behalf of the EAS 602 to the MEC platform 606. The EES 604 may use a Mp1 interface (reference point) to register with the MEC Platform 606. [0073] 4. The MEC Platform 606 performs the authorization check and registers the EAS 602. [0074] 5. Upon successful registration, the MEC Platform 606 responds with an application registration response to the EES 604. [0075] 6. The EES 604 in turn responds with an EAS dual registration response to the EAS 602, including a URI of the MEC platform 606. This will allow the EAS 602 to invoke APIs from the two platforms independently.
d. in response to receiving the indication that the first permission request has been granted, allocating, by the MEC platform device, a first application instance registration identifier for the first application instance;
The above limitation corresponds to limitation 1c and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
a. at a MEC platform device, a registration request for a first application instance; determining, by the MEC platform device, that the first application instance is not presently registered; in response to determining that the first application instance is not presently registered,
TSAI does however
The above limitation corresponds to limitation 1b and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
Filippou does not state the following limitation in its entirety.
b. causing, by the MEC platform device, a first permission request to be sent to a MEC system-level management device, wherein the first permission request is configured to request permission from the MEC system-level management device for the MEC platform device to be permitted to register the first application instance;
However, it does provide an element of this:
[0059] Upon receiving the registration request from the EAS 402
Esti provides the remaining element.
Page 28: 1) The OSS sends an instantiate application request to the MEC Orchestrator. 2) MEC Orchestrator (…) authorizes the request.
Filippou provides the context of application registration. Etsi provides a request by the mec platform to a MEC Orchestrator (sytem level management device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this application’s filing to modify Filippou’s design to request permission from an MEC Orchestrator or system-level management device as this would allow requests to be authenticated.
Filippou does not teach the following limitation in its entirety.
e. transmitting, by the MEC platform device, the first application instance registration identifier to the first application instance;
However, it does provide an element of this.
And Esti provides the remaining elements.
The above limitation corresponds to limitation 1d and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
Filippou does not teach the following limitation in its entirety.
f. and causing, by the MEC platform device, a first application instance registration notification to be sent to the MEC system-level management device.
However, it does provide an element of this.
And Esti provides the remaining elements.
The above limitation corresponds to limitation 1e and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 10’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 11.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
11. The method of claim 10,
a. wherein the MEC platform device is communicatively coupled to a MEC platform manager device.
Esti does however.
The above limitation corresponds to limitation 2a and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 10’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 12.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
12. The method of claim 10
a. wherein determining that the first application instance is not presently registered further comprises: determining, by the MEC system-level management device, that the first application instance is not presently registered by the MEC system.
TSAI does however.
The above limitation corresponds to limitation 5a and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
Filippou teaches the following substantially as claimed:
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 10’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 13.
13. The method of claim 10
a. wherein the registration request for the first application instance comprises at least one identifier uniquely identifying the first application instance
The above limitation corresponds to limitation 6a and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 10’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 15.
Filippou does not state the following limitation in its entirety:
15. The method of claim 10,
a. wherein the first application instance registration notification comprises at least the first application instance registration identifier.
However, it does provide an element of this:
And Esti provides the remaining element.
The above limitation corresponds to limitation 8a and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 15’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 16.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
16. The method of claim 15,
a. wherein the first application instance registration notification further comprises one or more additional application information fields associated with the first application instance.
However, it does provide an element of this:
And Esti provides the remaining element.
The above limitation corresponds to limitation 9a and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 10’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 17.
17. The method of claim 10,
a. wherein the first application instance registration notification is further caused to be sent to an operator-level support device.
Page 29: 11) The MEC Orchestrator also returns the application instance ID to the OSS if the flow is successful. Here, an Operations Support System (OSS) is analogous to an operator-level support device.
Filippou provides the context of application registration. Etsi provides a return message (or notification) to an Operations Support System. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this application’s filing to modify Filippou’s design to provide a notification regarding the registration to an Operations Support System as it would allow for greater monitoring of performance.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 10’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 18.
Filippou states the following substantially as claimed.
18. The method of claim 10,
a. wherein the first application instance registration identifier is allocated by the MEC platform device before the MEC platform device causes the first permission request to be sent to the MEC system-level management device.
[0059] Upon receiving the registration request from the EAS 402, the EES 404 stores EAS profile information to be used during EAS discovery at a later stage . In an example, the EAS profile will contain some or all the information elements described in Table 2:
TABLE 2, List of Information Elements in EAS Profile (source: 3GPP TS 23.558),
EASID : The identifier of the EAS
[0069] FIG. 6 depicts a dual application registration procedure, in a scenario that is triggered by an EAS. This is depicted in FIG. 6 with the following sequence: [0070] 1. An EAS 602 determines that dual application registration to a EES 604 and to a MEC Platform 606 is desired, and the EAS 602 sends a dual application registration request to the EES 604. The request includes the EAS profile and may include a proposed expiration time for the registration. [0071] 2. The EES 604 performs an authorization check to verify whether the EAS 602 has the authorization to register on the EES 604. After the verification, the EES 604 registers the EAS 602. [0072] 3, The EES 604 sends an application registration request on behalf of the EAS 602 to the MEC platform 606. The EES 604 may use a Mp1 interface (reference point) to register with the MEC Platform 606. [0073] 4. The MEC Platform 606 performs the authorization check and registers the EAS 602. [0074] 5. Upon successful registration, the MEC Platform 606 responds with an application registration response to the EES 604. [0075] 6. The EES 604 in turn responds with an EAS dual registration response to the EAS 602, including a URI of the MEC platform 606. This will allow the EAS 602 to invoke APIs from the two platforms independently. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this applications filing to allow ESTI’s design to allocate a registration id ahead of being sent to an analogous management component as it could confer the advantage of reduced dependency on an orchestration component.
It’s described above the app id is stored (therefore allocated) when the registration request is received. This takes place in advance of any further request.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 10’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 19.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
19. The method of claim 10,
a. wherein the requesting of permission from the MEC system-level management device for the MEC platform device to be permitted to register the first application instance further comprises: causing, at the MEC system-level management device, any services or features required by the first application instance to be made available at the MEC platform device.
However, it does provide an element of this:
[0059] Upon receiving the registration request from the EAS
Esti provides the remaining element.
Page 120, 6.3.1.10.1 (Configure platform for application instance operation) Description: This operation allows MEAO to send configuration information to MEPM-V. The configuration information includes the traffic rules, DNS rules, the required and optional services, and services produced by the application instance, etc. This operation may trigger MEPM-V to send the configuration information to the MEP to prepare it for running an application instance.
Filippou provides the context of application registration. Etsi provides services of an application being made available to the platform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this application’s filing to modify Filippou’s design to provide the required services of an application to a platform as these services, by definition are necessary for said applications to function properly.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20250286916 A1, MEC DUAL EDGE APP REGISTRATION ON BEHALF OF EDGE PLATFORM IN DUAL EDGE DEPLOYMENTS, Filippou et all. (Filippou hereafter )2022-11-02. In view of ETSI GS MEC 010-2, ETSI, 2022-02, (ETSI hereafter) in view of TW I640216 B, CONTROLLING METHOD, NETWORK SYSTEM AND CONTROLLING PLATFORM FOR MOBILE-EDGE COMPUTING, TSAI et all. (TSAI hereafter), 2018-11-01. as well as in view of 20230396954, A1 EXTERNAL ASSISTED APPLICATION MOBILITY IN EDGE COMPUTING, Zhang et all. (Zhang hereafter) 2020-10-27.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 10’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 14.
Filippou does not state explicitly the following limitation:
14. The method of claim 10,
a. further comprising: causing the first permission request to be sent from the MEC system-level management device to an operator-level support device of the MEC system, wherein the MEC system-level management device is further configured to request permission from the operator-level support device for the MEC platform device to be permitted to register the first application instance.
Zheng does however.
[0118] A user application (e.g. the MEC application 212-1 or 212-2) may be a MEC application that is instantiated in the MEC system in response to a request of a user via an application running in the device (for example, the device application 285). The user application lifecycle management (LCM) proxy 280 may allow the device application 285 to request on-boarding, instantiation, termination of user applications 212 and when supported, relocation of user applications 212 in and out of the MEC system. It also allows informing the device application 285 about the state of the user applications 212. [0119] The user application lifecycle management proxy 280 may authorize requests from the device application 285 in the device (e.g. UE, laptop with Internet connectivity) and interact with the OSS 270 and the MEO 260 for further processing of these requests. The user application lifecycle management proxy 280 may be only available when supported by the MEC system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this applications filing to allow ESTI’s analogous management component to request permission to instantiate applications as it would give users greater discretion over what to allow.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20250286916 A1, MEC DUAL EDGE APP REGISTRATION ON BEHALF OF EDGE PLATFORM IN DUAL EDGE DEPLOYMENTS, Filippou et all. (Filippou hereafter )2022-11-02. In view of ETSI GS MEC 010-2, ETSI, 2022-02, (ETSI hereafter)in view of TW I640216 B, CONTROLLING METHOD, NETWORK SYSTEM AND CONTROLLING PLATFORM FOR MOBILE-EDGE COMPUTING, TSAI et all. (TSAI hereafter), 2018-11-01. as well as in in view of US 11197209 B2, Efficient Computing Of Application Data In Mobile Communication Network, NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY (NOKIA Hereafter). 2021-12-07.
The reasoning cited for the rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 20.
Filippou does explicitly state the following limitation.
20. A device comprising:
a. a receiver; a transmitter; at least one interface; and a processor configured to perform the method of claim 1.
Nokia does however.
(70) In an embodiment, at least some of the processes described in connection with FIGS. 3 to 6 may be carried out by an apparatus comprising corresponding means for carrying out at least some of the described processes. Some example means for carrying out the processes may include at least one of the following: detector, processor (including dual-core and multiple-core processors), digital signal processor, controller, receiver, transmitter, encoder, decoder, memory, RAM, ROM, software, firmware, display, user interface, display circuitry, user interface circuitry, user interface software, display software, circuit, antenna, antenna circuitry, and circuitry. In an embodiment, the at least one processor, the memory, and the computer program code form processing means or comprises one or more computer program code portions for carrying out one or more operations according to any one of the embodiments described herein.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of this applications filing that ETSI’s design would make use of these generic computing components as each performs a specific and necessary function that contributes to the operation of the MEC system, ensuring the of the system processes work together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Absher whose telephone number is (571) 270-1057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 US PTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/ /www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached at 571-270-3180.
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.
/LUCAS DONALD ABSHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2194 /KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights