DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for a 371 of PCT/EP2021/076698 filed on September 28, 2021 and foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) based on Greece Parent Application No. 20210100560, filed on August 19, 2021.
Preliminary Amendment
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of the preliminary amendment on April 26, 2024. Claims 1-15 have been amended; claim 16-20 are new.
Upon entering the amendment, claims 1-20 are pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of information disclosure statement (IDS), dated on February 20, 2024 and May 30, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner's Notes
5. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 10, it recites, “The NE of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the NE to:
determine an application context relocation change for the application client to the first edge application server of the first edge data network or a third edge application server of a third edge data network, based on the monitoring; and
transmit the application context relocation change indication to at least one entity involved in the application context relocation for the application client.”
It is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), since there is a lack of antecedent basis for the usage of the term “the application context relocation change indication” as indicated in italics above.
8. Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 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.
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2024/0205781) in view of Kolan (US 2022/0417813).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. teach the network equipment (NE) for wireless communication (paragraphs [0098] lines 1–9 & [0313] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: hardware resource, e.g., NG-RAN depicted in FIG. 4 and 1700 depicted in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “network equipment (NE)” in the instant application), comprising:
at least one memory (paragraph [0313] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: memory 1720 in NG-RAN 1700 depicted in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one memory” in the instant application); and
at least one processor (paragraph [0313] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: processor 1710 in NG-RAN 1700 depicted in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one processor” in the instant application) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the NE to:
receive a predicted route for a user equipment (“UE”) (paragraphs [0025] lines 1–26 & [0098] lines 1–9; Examiner’s Notes: UE depicted in FIG. 4 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a user equipment;”
In fact, receiving a possible trajectory/prediction for the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive a predicted route for a user equipment (“UE”)” in the instant application);
receive one or more data analytics parameters for at least one of a radio access network (RAN), a core network, or an edge data network associated with the predicted route of the UE (paragraph [0025] lines 1–26; Examiner’s Notes: the MDA (management data analytics) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “data analytics parameters;”
In fact, receiving the MDA (management data analytics) for the NG-RAN regards to the possible trajectory/route prediction for the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive one or more data analytics parameters for at least one of a radio access network (RAN), a core network, or an edge data network associated with the predicted route of the UE” in the instant application).
Li et al. teach the NE without explicitly teaching determining a trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters.
Kolan from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, determining at least one trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters (paragraphs [0088] lines 1-16 & [0116] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: Examiner’s Notes: the key performance indicator (KPI) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “trigger action for remapping;”
source edge data network 602 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first edge data network;”
target edge data network 604 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second edge data network;”
In fact, estimating/determining the key performance indicator (KPI) for mapping/remapping the application client from the edge server of the source edge data network 602 to the edge server of target edge data network 604, based on the estimated/predicted route for the UE and the data analytics, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining at least one trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters” in the instant application); and
determining an application context relocation for the application client based on the at least one trigger action (paragraph [0129] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: Examiner’s Notes: determining application context information/relocation-map for the application client based on the KPI in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining an application context relocation for the application client based on the at least one trigger action” in the instant application); and
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Kolan in the system of Li et al.
The motivation for implementing determining a trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters, is to further enhance the mechanism for communication interface, wherein the communication interface receives signaling that indicates edge application service relocation for transferring a user equipment (UE) session for a UE to a target edge data network, and the processor identifies an edge application service in the source edge data network processing media content corresponding to the UE session, generates a resource template for the edge application service including requirements for running the edge application service, transmits a request for the edge application service relocation to the target edge data network, the request including the resource template, and enables the edge application service relocation for the user equipment from the edge application service at the source edge data network to an edge application service at the target edge data network.
Regarding claim 2, Kolan teaches the NE, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the NE to
configure a policy for performing the application context relocation for the application client (paragraph [0088] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: the direction/policy for transferring the application context via an edge application service relocation 600, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a policy for performing the application context relocation;”
In fact, configuring the direction/policy for transferring the application context via an edge application service relocation 600, for the application client as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “configure a policy for performing the application context relocation for the application client” in the instant application),
the policy comprising at least one rule for selecting an edge application server or an edge data network for remapping the application client (paragraph [0116] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: the information/policy for deploying/selecting an edge data network for relocating/remapping the application client in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the policy comprising at least one rule for selecting an edge application server or an edge data network for remapping the application client” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 3, Li et al. further teach the NE, wherein the at least one rule comprises: selecting the edge application server or edge data network that is geographically closer to the UE (paragraph [0301] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: selecting the edge data network 1536 closer to UE 1502, as illustrated in FIG. 15 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “selecting the edge application server or edge data network that is geographically closer to the UE” in the instant application);
selecting the edge application server or edge data network that satisfies quality of service requirements, based on the one or more data analytics parameters, and at least one of: has a load that satisfies a load threshold; is associated with a RAN node that has a load that satisfies the load threshold; services a larger coverage area than other edge data networks; and provides a higher performance than other edge data networks; or a combination thereof (paragraph [0289] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: determining/providing appropriate QoS for the edge data network in the prior art teaches the limitation of “provides a higher performance than other edge data networks;”
In fact, selecting the edge data network based on the data analytics and the appropriate QoS for the edge data network in the prior art teaches the limitation of “selecting the edge application server or edge data network that satisfies quality of service requirements, based on the one or more data analytics parameters, and at least one of: has a load that satisfies a load threshold; is associated with a RAN node that has a load that satisfies the load threshold; services a larger coverage area than other edge data networks; and provides a higher performance than other edge data networks; or a combination thereof” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 4, Kolan further teaches the NE, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the NE to
transmit the application context relocation to at least one entity associated with the application context relocation for the application client (paragraph [0088] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: transferring the application context via an edge application service relocation 600, for the application client, e.g. UE, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit the application context relocation to at least one entity associated with the application context relocation for the application client” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 5, Kolan further teaches the NE, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the NE to
receive at least one cell radio parameter for one or more cells within the predicted route for the UE (paragraph [0088] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: receiving the cell parameter within the predicted route for the UE, regards to the application service relocation between the source edge data network 602 and the target edge data network 604, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive at least one cell radio parameter for one or more cells within the predicted route for the UE” in the instant application),
the at least one cell radio parameter used to determine the application context relocation for the application client and comprising a predicted cell change notification for the UE, a predicted radio bearer utilization, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0088] lines 6-16; Examiner’s Notes: the state/change of the application relocation for UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a predicted cell change notification for the UE;”
in fact, the cell parameter indicating the state/change of the application relocation for UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the at least one cell radio parameter used to determine the application context relocation for the application client and comprising a predicted cell change notification for the UE, a predicted radio bearer utilization, or a combination thereof” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 6, Kolan further teaches the NE, wherein the application context relocation for the application client comprises an expected time frame for when the application context relocation for the application client from the first edge data network to the second edge data network is to occur (paragraph [0102] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: the application context relocation indicating the time period for the application client from the source edge data network to the target edge data network in the prior art teaches the limitation of “an expected time frame for when the application context relocation for the application client from the first edge data network to the second edge data network is to occur” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Kolan further teaches the NE, wherein the application context relocation for the application client comprises an expiration time for the expected relocation (paragraph [0140] lines 1-6; Examiner’s Notes: the application context relocation indicating the amount of time allowed for the application client in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the application context relocation for the application client comprises an expiration time for the expected relocation” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 8, Kolan further teaches the NE, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the NE to
monitor whether conditions for the application context relocation for the application client are satisfied in response to the application context relocation being executed (paragraph [0140] lines 1-6; Examiner’s Notes: monitoring the conditions, e.g., if the amount of time is allowed regards to the application context in the prior art teaches the limitation of “monitor whether conditions for the application context relocation for the application client are satisfied in response to the application context relocation being executed” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 9, Li et al. further teach the NE, wherein monitoring comprises obtaining one or more location reports for the UE, receiving one or more edge data network performance changes within the predicted route of the UE, receiving one or more edge enabler server availability change reports, receiving one or more performance or fault monitoring events from a network management domain, receiving a quality of service (“QoS”) or resource change notification for the predicted route of the UE, receiving an expected or predicted QoS or resource change notification for the UE, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0301] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: receiving/selecting the location information for the UE, e.g., a point geographically that the UE is attached to the network, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “obtaining one or more location reports for the UE;”
In fact, receiving/selecting the location information for the UE, e.g., a point geographically that the UE is attached to the network, in the prior art teaches this claim limitation in the instant application).
Regarding claim 11, Li et al. further teach the NE, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the NE to:
receive a recommendation for the second edge data network (paragraph [0025] lines 1–26; Examiner’s Notes: the previous record in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a recommendation;”
In fact, receiving the previous record for the target edge data network in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive a recommendation for the second edge data network” in the instant application); and
translate the second edge data network to an optimal edge application server based on a predefined policy (paragraph [0025] lines 1–26; Examiner’s Notes: translating the target edge data network to the optimal edge application server in the target cell based on the predefined policy, e.g., the QoS, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “translate the second edge data network to an optimal edge application server based on a predefined policy” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 12, Li et al. further teach the NE, wherein the predicted route for the UE comprises a start location, an end location, an intermediate location between the start and the end locations, one or more service cells between the start and end locations, a latitude, a longitude, an altitude of one or more waypoints between the start and end locations, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0027] lines 1–10; Examiner’s Notes: the predicted trajectory/route for the UE indicating the location information in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the predicted route for the UE comprises a start location;”
In fact, the predicted trajectory/route for the UE indicating the location information in the prior art teaches this wherein clause limitation in the instant application).
Regarding claim 13, Kolan further teaches the NE, wherein the first edge data network and the second edge data network are the same data network (paragraph [0040] lines 1–11; Examiner’s Notes: the serving edge data network, e.g., 118, and the targeting edge data network, e.g., 116, are the same data network 102, as illustrated in FIG. 1 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first edge data network and the second edge data network are the same data network” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 14, Li et al. teach the method performed by a network equipment (NE) (paragraphs [0098] lines 1–9 & [0313] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: hardware resource, e.g., NG-RAN depicted in FIG. 4 and 1700 depicted in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “network equipment (NE)” in the instant application), the method comprising:
receiving a predicted route for a user equipment (“UE”) (paragraphs [0025] lines 1–26 & [0098] lines 1–9; Examiner’s Notes: UE depicted in FIG. 4 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a user equipment;”
In fact, receiving a possible trajectory/prediction for the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving a predicted route for a user equipment (“UE”)” in the instant application);
receiving one or more data analytics parameters for at least one of a radio access network (RAN), a core network, or an edge data network associated with the predicted route of the UE (paragraph [0025] lines 1–26; Examiner’s Notes: the MDA (management data analytics) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “data analytics parameters;”
In fact, receiving the MDA (management data analytics) for the NG-RAN regards to the possible trajectory/route prediction for the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving one or more data analytics parameters for at least one of a radio access network (RAN), a core network, or an edge data network associated with the predicted route of the UE” in the instant application).
Li et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching determining a trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters.
Kolan from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, determining at least one trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters (paragraphs [0088] lines 1-16 & [0116] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: Examiner’s Notes: the key performance indicator (KPI) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “trigger action for remapping;”
source edge data network 602 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first edge data network;”
target edge data network 604 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second edge data network;”
In fact, estimating/determining the key performance indicator (KPI) for mapping/remapping the application client from the edge server of the source edge data network 602 to the edge server of target edge data network 604, based on the estimated/predicted route for the UE and the data analytics, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining at least one trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters” in the instant application); and
determining an application context relocation for the application client based on the at least one trigger action (paragraph [0129] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: Examiner’s Notes: determining application context information/relocation-map for the application client based on the KPI in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining an application context relocation for the application client based on the at least one trigger action” in the instant application); and
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Kolan in the system of Li et al.
The motivation for implementing determining a trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters, is to further enhance the mechanism for communication interface, wherein the communication interface receives signaling that indicates edge application service relocation for transferring a user equipment (UE) session for a UE to a target edge data network, and the processor identifies an edge application service in the source edge data network processing media content corresponding to the UE session, generates a resource template for the edge application service including requirements for running the edge application service, transmits a request for the edge application service relocation to the target edge data network, the request including the resource template, and enables the edge application service relocation for the user equipment from the edge application service at the source edge data network to an edge application service at the target edge data network.
Regarding claim 15, Li et al. teach the network equipment (NE) for wireless communication (paragraphs [0098] lines 1–9 & [0313] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: hardware resource, e.g., NG-RAN depicted in FIG. 4 and 1700 depicted in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “network equipment (NE)” in the instant application), comprising:
at least one memory (paragraph [0313] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: memory 1720 in NG-RAN 1700 depicted in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one memory” in the instant application); and
at least one processor (paragraph [0313] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: processor 1710 in NG-RAN 1700 depicted in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one processor” in the instant application) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the NE to:
receive a predicted route for a user equipment (“UE”) (paragraphs [0025] lines 1–26 & [0098] lines 1–9; Examiner’s Notes: UE depicted in FIG. 4 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a user equipment;”
In fact, receiving a possible trajectory/prediction for the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive a predicted route for a user equipment (“UE”)” in the instant application);
translate the predicted route for the UE to at least one service cell that the UE is expected to traverse (paragraph [0025] lines 1–26; Examiner’s Notes: translating the predicted route/trajectory for the UE to the target service cell in the prior art teaches the limitation of “translate the predicted route for the UE to at least one service cell that the UE is expected to traverse” in the instant application);
receive one or more data analytics parameters for at least one data network associated with the predicted route of the UE and one or more radio measurements describing cell radio conditions for the at least one service cell along the predicted route for the UE (paragraph [0025] lines 1–26; Examiner’s Notes: the MDA (management data analytics) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “data analytics parameters;”
In fact, receiving the MDA (management data analytics) for the NG-RAN regards to the possible trajectory/route prediction and the radio measurements, e.g., the QoS for the serving cell for the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive one or more data analytics parameters for at least one data network associated with the predicted route of the UE and one or more radio measurements describing cell radio conditions for the at least one service cell along the predicted route for the UE” in the instant application);
Li et al. teach the NE without explicitly teaching determining an application context relocation for an application client from a first edge application server to a second edge application server based on a trigger action.
Kolan from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, determining an application context relocation for an application client from a first edge application server to a second edge application server based on a trigger action (paragraphs [0088] lines 1-16 & [0116] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: Examiner’s Notes: the key performance indicator (KPI) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “trigger action;”
source edge data network 602 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first edge data network;”
target edge data network 604 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second edge data network;”
In fact, determining application context information/relocation-map for the application client from the source edge application server to the target edge application server based on the KPI in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining an application context relocation for an application client from a first edge application server to a second edge application server based on a trigger action” in the instant application); and
transmitting the application context relocation to at least one entity involved in the application context relocation for the application client (paragraph [0129] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: Examiner’s Notes: transmitting the application context information/relocation-map to the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmitting the application context relocation to at least one entity involved in the application context relocation for the application client” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Kolan in the system of Li et al.
The motivation for implementing determining an application context relocation for an application client from a first edge application server to a second edge application server based on a trigger action, is to further enhance the mechanism for communication interface, wherein the communication interface receives signaling that indicates edge application service relocation for transferring a user equipment (UE) session for a UE to a target edge data network, and the processor identifies an edge application service in the source edge data network processing media content corresponding to the UE session, generates a resource template for the edge application service including requirements for running the edge application service, transmits a request for the edge application service relocation to the target edge data network, the request including the resource template, and enables the edge application service relocation for the user equipment from the edge application service at the source edge data network to an edge application service at the target edge data network.
Regarding claim 16, Li et al. teach the processor for wireless communication (paragraphs [0098] lines 1–9 & [0313] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: hardware resource, e.g., NG-RAN depicted in FIG. 4 and 1700 depicted in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “processor” in the instant application), comprising:
at least one controller (paragraph [0313] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: processor 1710 in NG-RAN 1700 depicted in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one controller” in the instant application) coupled with at least one memory (paragraph [0313] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: memory 1720 in NG-RAN 1700 depicted in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one memory” in the instant application) and configured to cause the processor to:
receive a predicted route for a user equipment (“UE”) (paragraphs [0025] lines 1–26 & [0098] lines 1–9; Examiner’s Notes: UE depicted in FIG. 4 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a user equipment;”
In fact, receiving a possible trajectory/prediction for the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive a predicted route for a user equipment (“UE”)” in the instant application);
receive one or more data analytics parameters for at least one of a radio access network (RAN), a core network, or an edge data network associated with the predicted route of the UE (paragraph [0025] lines 1–26; Examiner’s Notes: the MDA (management data analytics) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “data analytics parameters;”
In fact, receiving the MDA (management data analytics) for the NG-RAN regards to the possible trajectory/route prediction for the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive one or more data analytics parameters for at least one of a radio access network (RAN), a core network, or an edge data network associated with the predicted route of the UE” in the instant application).
Li et al. teach the NE without explicitly teaching determining a trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters.
Kolan from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, determining at least one trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters (paragraphs [0088] lines 1-16 & [0116] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: Examiner’s Notes: the key performance indicator (KPI) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “trigger action for remapping;”
source edge data network 602 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first edge data network;”
target edge data network 604 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second edge data network;”
In fact, estimating/determining the key performance indicator (KPI) for mapping/remapping the application client from the edge server of the source edge data network 602 to the edge server of target edge data network 604, based on the estimated/predicted route for the UE and the data analytics, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining at least one trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters” in the instant application); and
determining an application context relocation for the application client based on the at least one trigger action (paragraph [0129] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: Examiner’s Notes: determining application context information/relocation-map for the application client based on the KPI in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining an application context relocation for the application client based on the at least one trigger action” in the instant application); and
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Kolan in the system of Li et al.
The motivation for implementing determining a trigger action for remapping an application client from a first edge application server of a first edge data network to a second edge application server of a second edge data network based on the predicted route for the UE and the one or more data analytics parameters, is to further enhance the mechanism for communication interface, wherein the communication interface receives signaling that indicates edge application service relocation for transferring a user equipment (UE) session for a UE to a target edge data network, and the processor identifies an edge application service in the source edge data network processing media content corresponding to the UE session, generates a resource template for the edge application service including requirements for running the edge application service, transmits a request for the edge application service relocation to the target edge data network, the request including the resource template, and enables the edge application service relocation for the user equipment from the edge application service at the source edge data network to an edge application service at the target edge data network.
Regarding claim 17, Kolan teaches the processor, wherein the at least one controller is configured to
configure a policy for performing the application context relocation for the application client (paragraph [0088] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: the direction/policy for transferring the application context via an edge application service relocation 600, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a policy for performing the application context relocation;”
In fact, configuring the direction/policy for transferring the application context via an edge application service relocation 600, for the application client as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “configure a policy for performing the application context relocation for the application client” in the instant application),
the policy comprising at least one rule for selecting an edge application server or an edge data network for remapping the application client (paragraph [0116] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: the information/policy for deploying/selecting an edge data network for relocating/remapping the application client in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the policy comprising at least one rule for selecting an edge application server or an edge data network for remapping the application client” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 18, Li et al. further teach the processor, wherein the at least one rule comprises: selecting the edge application server or edge data network that is geographically closer to the UE (paragraph [0301] lines 1–16; Examiner’s Notes: selecting the edge data network 1536 closer to UE 1502, as illustrated in FIG. 15 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “selecting the edge application server or edge data network that is geographically closer to the UE” in the instant application);
selecting the edge application server or edge data network that satisfies quality of service requirements, based on the one or more data analytics parameters, and at least one of: has a load that satisfies a load threshold; is associated with a RAN node that has a load that satisfies the load threshold; services a larger coverage area than other edge data networks; and provides a higher performance than other edge data networks; or a combination thereof (paragraph [0289] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: determining/providing appropriate QoS for the edge data network in the prior art teaches the limitation of “provides a higher performance than other edge data networks;”
In fact, selecting the edge data network based on the data analytics and the appropriate QoS for the edge data network in the prior art teaches the limitation of “selecting the edge application server or edge data network that satisfies quality of service requirements, based on the one or more data analytics parameters, and at least one of: has a load that satisfies a load threshold; is associated with a RAN node that has a load that satisfies the load threshold; services a larger coverage area than other edge data networks; and provides a higher performance than other edge data networks; or a combination thereof” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 19, Kolan further teaches the processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to
transmit the application context relocation to at least one entity associated with the application context relocation for the application client (paragraph [0088] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: transferring the application context via an edge application service relocation 600, for the application client, e.g. UE, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit the application context relocation to at least one entity associated with the application context relocation for the application client” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 20, Kolan further teaches the processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to
receive at least one cell radio parameter for one or more cells within the predicted route for the UE (paragraph [0088] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: receiving the cell parameter within the predicted route for the UE, regards to the application service relocation between the source edge data network 602 and the target edge data network 604, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive at least one cell radio parameter for one or more cells within the predicted route for the UE” in the instant application),
the at least one cell radio parameter used to determine the application context relocation for the application client and comprising a predicted cell change notification for the UE, a predicted radio bearer utilization, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0088] lines 6-16; Examiner’s Notes: the state/change of the application relocation for UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a predicted cell change notification for the UE;”
in fact, the cell parameter indicating the state/change of the application relocation for UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the at least one cell radio parameter used to determine the application context relocation for the application client and comprising a predicted cell change notification for the UE, a predicted radio bearer utilization, or a combination thereof” in the instant application).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
Amerga et al. (US 2013/0294318) is generally directed to various aspects of the method for transmitting a downlink signal at a base station in a wireless communication system includes generating a user equipment (UE)-specific reference signal sequence and mapping the generated sequence to resource elements (REs) predetermined according to antenna port groups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAE Y. LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights