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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on June 11, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 14, 15, 16 and 17 have been amended; no claims have been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. The new grounds of rejection set forth below were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, and accordingly this action is properly made final. See MPEP 706.07(a). THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 15, paragraph [0006], filed June 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and the Examiner has issued a new ground(s) of rejection in view of 3GPP TS 23.288 (v16.4.0, July 2020).
Specifically, Applicant correctly observes that “While Hall describes event detection leading to relocation decisions, it does not teach determining a trigger action specifically based on a deviation from expected or predicted UE parameter values” (Remarks, page 15, paragraph [0006]). Neither Hall nor Kim uses the terms “expected” or “predicted” in the sense now recited, and neither reference discloses comparing a parameter against an expected or predicted value. Kim’s disclosure of departure from a service area (Kim, para [0130], “the EES 100 may detect that the user equipment deviates from an EAS service area”) is a departure from a geographic service area, not a deviation of a parameter from its expected or predicted value. The rejections of record are therefore withdrawn and replaced by the new grounds set forth below, which supply the recited deviation-based determination through 3GPP TS 23.288.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 11, 2026 with respect to claims 2-13 and 17-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Claims 2, 3, 7-13, 17, and 18, which depend from the amended independent claims, are likewise patentable for at least the same reasons” (Remarks, page 15, paragraph [0007]), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the argument rests entirely on the patentability of the amended independent claims and advances no separate basis for the dependent claims. Because independent claims 1, 14, 15 and 16 remain rejected under the new grounds set forth below, the dependent claims fall with them, and each dependent claim is separately addressed on the merits in the rejections set forth below.
In regard to Applicant’s argument that “Even if considered separately, Young’s general teachings regarding timers and relocation parameters in a MEC context do not supply the missing element of determining a trigger action based on a deviation from expected or predicted UE parameter values specifically to maintain service continuity” (Remarks, page 16, paragraph [0011]), in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Young is not relied upon for the deviation-based determination; that limitation is supplied by 3GPP TS 23.288, as quoted in the rejections set forth below, and Young is relied upon only for the relocation-timing, network-slice and data-network-name parameters recited in claims 4-6 and 19-20.
As to Applicant’s argument that the fields of the modification and pause requests “further distinguish the claims when viewed in the context of the deviation-triggered, service-continuity-preserving mechanism now required by the amended independent claims” (Remarks, page 15, paragraph [0010]), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited request fields are recited as alternatives closing with “or a combination thereof”, so a single recited field read on the prior art satisfies the limitation, and Young discloses relocation timing, network-slice and data-network-name parameters for an application-service-session relocation, as quoted in the rejections set forth below.
For at least these reasons, the rejections of record are withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are set forth below. The new grounds of rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed June 11, 2026: the amendment added to claims 1, 14, 15 and 16 the requirement that the event notification indicate a deviation of a parameter that is expected to change from its expected or predicted value and that the trigger action be determined on the basis of that deviation, a limitation not present in the claims as previously rejected. Meeting that limitation requires 3GPP TS 23.288, which was not applied in the prior rejection of record. Claims 1-3, 7-18 newly gain 3GPP TS 23.288 as the third reference of their chain, and claims 4-6 and 19-20 newly gain 3GPP TS 23.288 as the third reference of their chain while retaining Young as the fourth. In addition, claims 2 and 17 are now rejected over a passage of 3GPP TS 23.288 rather than the passages of Kim cited in the prior rejection of record. Accordingly, this action is properly made final under MPEP 706.07(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 2021/0337043 A1) in view of Kim (US 2021/0352156 A1) and further in view of 3GPP TS 23.288 V16.4.0 (ETSI TS 123 288 V16.4.0, July 2020).
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Hall discloses: An apparatus for performing a network function, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to: because Hall teaches an edge network device for wireless communication that includes memory, one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory, and instructions stored in the memory that when executed cause that edge network device to carry out the recited operations: (Hall, para [0017] “an edge network device for wireless communication may include memory, one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory, and instructions stored in the memory . . . The instructions in the memory may be operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the edge network device to”).
Furthermore, Hall discloses: receive, from a detection entity, an event notification related to an adaption of a behavior of at least one user equipment (UE); because Hall teaches that an edge enabler client detects an event at the UE and thereupon triggers the edge enabler server to perform an application context relocation, the edge enabler client being the entity that detects the event and reports it: (Hall, para [0095] “an edge enabler client (EEC) (or source EEC) of an edge network device may detect an event (e.g., handover) that could lead to a transfer of an application context . . . the EEC may trigger the edge enabler server (EES) to perform an application context relocation”).
Moreover, Hall discloses: determine, in response of receiving the event notification, a trigger action for at least one application of the at least one UE, because Hall teaches that the edge enabler server, upon receiving the trigger, decides whether to process the application context relocation for the application that the context supports: (Hall, para [0096] “the EES may decide whether to process the application context relocation (and honor the trigger from the EEC)”).
Furthermore, Hall discloses: transmit the trigger action to an application entity, a further application enablement entity, or a combination thereof to execute the trigger action based on the event notification. because Hall teaches that the edge enabler server transmits a relocation request to the edge application server, and that the edge enabler client thereafter commands the application client to transfer the application context: (Hall, para [0100] “the EES may transmit a relocation request to the EAS”; Hall, para [0101] “The EEC may provide a command to the EAC , at reference number 535, to transfer the application context”).
With respect to claim 1, even though Hall teaches the detection of an event at the UE and the resulting relocation decision: (Hall, para [0095], [0096], [0110]), Hall does not explicitly disclose: wherein the trigger action comprises: an edge support service modification; an edge support service cancellation; an edge support service pause; selection of an alternative application server; creation of a new candidate target application server; or a combination thereof; and
However, Hall in view of Kim teaches an edge application server information change event notification carrying updated address, service KPI and profile information, the identification of an unavailable server status, the selection of a currently available alternative server in place of the existing one, and the instantiation of a newly registered server: (Kim, para [0096], “the EAS 101 may transmit an EAS info change event notification to the EES 100”; Kim, para [0125], “the EES 100 may identify that the existing EAS is an unavailable EAS status”; Kim, para [0117], “the target EES 200 may select the currently available EAS 201 or may trigger new EAS instantiation”; Kim, para [0099], “the EAS 102 being newly instantiated by the manager server 401 may inform that the EAS 102 is ready to provide the service”).
With respect to claim 1, despite fact that Hall teaches the detection of an event at the UE and the resulting relocation decision: (Hall, para [0095], [0096], [0110]), and Kim teaches the relocation carried out to preserve the edge service: (Kim, para [0115], [0118]), Hall in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose that the event notification indicates a deviation of a parameter that is expected to change for the UE from its expected or predicted value, or that the trigger action is determined based at least in part on that deviation: wherein the event notification indicates a deviation of at least one parameter that is expected to change for the at least one UE from its expected or predicted value, and wherein the trigger action is determined based at least in part on the deviation to maintain service continuity for the at least one application;
However, Hall in view of Kim and further in view of TS 23.288 discloses that the network detects UEs whose behavior deviates from the expected UE behavior and notifies the result of that analytics to the consumer, that the reported exceptions include an unexpected UE location, and that the serving mobility function reports an event only upon detecting such a deviation, and because Kim teaches that the application context is transferred as necessary to guarantee the service continuity of the user equipment: (TS 23.288, cl. 6.7.5.1, page 46, “When the NWDAF detects those UEs that deviate from the expected UE behavior, e.g. unexpected UE location, abnormal traffic pattern, wrong destination address etc., the NWDAF shall notify the result of the analytics to the consumer”; TS 23.288, cl. 6.7.5.3, page 51, “the AMF sends event reports to the NWDAF only when it detects that the UE’s behavior deviated from its expected UE behavior”; Kim, para [0118], “necessary to guarantee the service continuity of the user equipment 50”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the relocation trigger of Hall, as carried out through Kim’s target server selection and context transfer, on the basis of the deviation-from-expected-behavior analytics of TS 23.288, because TS 23.288 provides a standardized network capability for detecting and reporting exactly such deviations, and because using that report as the event that drives the relocation decision would have predictably allowed the edge service to be relocated before the deviation degraded it, thereby preserving the service continuity that Kim describes.
Regarding claim 2, (Currently Amended) Hall in view of Kim and further in view of TS 23.288 discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one parameter comprises: an expected mobility of the at least one UE; a predicted mobility of the at least one UE; an expected location of the at least one UE; a predicted location of the at least one UE; an expected change of speed of the at least one UE; a predicted change of speed of the at least one UE; an expected direction of the at least one UE; a predicted direction of the at least one UE; a change of a service profile of the at least one application of the at least one UE; a change of a service operation of the at least one application of the at least one UE; a confidence level of a predicted UE behavior; an expected quality of service of the at least one UE; an expected quality of service of a network device; a predicted quality of service of the at least one UE; a predicted quality of service of the network device; or a combination thereof. as TS 23.288 further teaches UE mobility predictions comprising a predicted UE location and a confidence of that prediction, and further teaches the collection of UE mobility information for the production of those predictions: (TS 23.288, cl. 6.7.2.3, page 38, “Predicted location prediction during the Analytics target period”; TS 23.288, cl. 6.7.2.3, page 38, “Confidence Confidence of this prediction”; TS 23.288, cl. 6.7.2.1, page 36, “NWDAF supporting UE mobility statistics or predictions shall be able to collect UE mobility related information from NF, OAM, and to perform data analytics to provide UE mobility statistics or predictions”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine Hall, Kim, and TS 23.288 is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, (Previously Presented) Hall in view of Kim discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the event notification further comprises: a network failure, a network interface failure, an application interface failure, an edge data network unavailability indication, an edge data network failure indication, or a combination thereof. as Kim further teaches that the edge enabler server identifies from the received change event that the existing edge application server is in an unavailable status, and that the user equipment is informed that the server status has changed to unavailable: (Kim, para [0125], “the EES 100 may identify that the existing EAS is in an unavailable EAS status”; Kim, para [0129], “informing the user equipment that the EAS status is changed to an unavailable status.”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine Hall, Kim, and TS 23.288 is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, (Previously Presented) Hall discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the network function comprises an application enablement entity. as Hall further teaches that the entity performing the recited operations is the edge enabler server: (Hall, para [0096], “the EES may decide whether to process the application context relocation)
Regarding claim 8, (Previously Presented) Hall discloses: The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the application enablement entity comprises an edge enabler client or an edge enabler server. as Hall further teaches both an edge enabler client and an edge enabler server: (Hall, para [0095], “an edge enabler client (EEC) (or source EEC) of an edge network device may detect an event”; Hall, para [0095], “the EEC may trigger the edge enabler server (EES) to perform an application context relocation”).
Regarding claim 9, (Previously Presented) Hall in view of Kim discloses: The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the application enablement entity is configured to control an edge application service continuity for the at least one application. as Kim further teaches that the application context information is transferred as necessary to guarantee the service continuity of the user equipment: (Kim, para [0118], “necessary to guarantee the service continuity of the user equipment 50”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine Hall, Kim, and TS 23.288 is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, (Previously Presented) Hall discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit the trigger action to the application entity, the further application enablement entity, or the combination thereof to execute the trigger action based on the event notification. as Hall further teaches that the edge enabler server transmits the relocation request to the edge application server, which then determines whether to honor the trigger: (Hall, para [0100], “the EES may transmit a relocation request to the EAS”; Hall, para [0100], “the EES and/or the EAS may deter mine whether to honor the trigger from the EEC”).
Regarding claim 11, (Previously Presented) Hall in view of Kim discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to translate the trigger action to at least one edge service parameter for an application service of the at least one application of the at least one UE. as Kim further teaches that the server-selection action decided in response to the relocation is carried out on the transferred information, and that the edge application server information retrieved as a consequence of that action is then configured and transmitted, so that the action is converted into the edge service parameters -- server identifier, address, profile and time to live -- under which the application service is thereafter provided: (Kim, para [0117], “the target EES 200 may select the currently available EAS 201 or may trigger new EAS instantiation based on the information transferred at operation 520”; Kim, para [0118], “the target EES 200 may configure and transmit, to the existing EES 100, the EAS information retrieved according to performing of operation 522 and time to live for the corresponding information”; Kim, para [0099], “the new EAS 102 may transfer its own EAS ID, EAS address, and EAS profile information (e.g., a service area, a service KPI, computing resource, and a supportable app client ID) to the EES 100”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine Hall, Kim, and TS 23.288 is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, (Previously Presented) Hall in view of Kim: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine, based on the trigger action, an update to edge enabler client context relocation parameters, an application context corresponding to the edge enabler client context relocation parameters, or a combination thereof. as Kim further teaches that the target edge enabler server configures and transmits the retrieved edge application server information together with a time to live for that information, and that the application context is thereafter transferred: (Kim, para [0118], “the target EES 200 may configure and transmit, to the existing EES 100, the EAS information retrieved according to performing of operation 522 and time to live for the corresponding information”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine Hall, Kim, and TS 23.288 is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, (Previously Presented) Hall in view of Kim discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to trigger, based on the trigger action, a dynamic edge application server instantiation, a pro-active edge application server instantiation, or a combination thereof. as Kim further teaches that an edge application server newly instantiated by the manager server registers with the edge enabler server and reports that it is ready to provide the service: (Kim, para [0099], “the EAS 102 being newly instantiated by the manager server 401 may inform that the EAS 102 is ready to provide the service”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine Hall, Kim, and TS 23.288 is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: A method of performing a network function, the method comprising: receiving, from a detection entity, an event notification related to an adaption of a behavior of at least one user equipment (UE); determining, in response of receiving the event notification, a trigger action for at least one application of the at least one UE, wherein the event notification indicates a deviation of at least one parameter that is expected to change for the at least one UE from its expected or predicted value, and wherein the trigger action is determined based at least in part on the deviation to maintain service continuity for the at least one application; wherein the trigger action comprises: an edge support service modification; an edge support service cancellation; an edge support service pause; selection of an alternative application server; creation of a new candidate target application server; or a combination thereof; and transmitting the trigger action to an application entity, a further application enablement entity, or a combination thereof to execute the trigger action based on the event notification. Claim 14 is analogous to claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 15, (Currently Amended) Hall discloses: An apparatus for performing a network function, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a monitoring event from an application, a second network entity, or a combination thereof; because Hall teaches an edge network device including memory and one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory, and because Kim teaches that the edge application server transmits an information change event notification to the edge enabler server upon an update occurring: (Hall, para [0017] “an edge network device for wireless communication may include memory, one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory, and instructions stored in the memory”; Kim, para [0096] “At operation 418, when the EAS information update occurs, the EAS 101 may transmit an EAS info change event notification to the EES 100”).
Furthermore, Hall in view of Kim and further in view of TS 23.288 discloses determine, in response of receiving the monitoring event, an event notification related to an adaption of a behavior of at least one user equipment (UE), wherein the event notification indicates a deviation of at least one parameter that is expected to change for the at least one UE from its expected or predicted value and is determined to support maintenance of service continuity for at least one application of the at least one UE; and because TS 23.288 teaches that the deviation of a UE from its expected behavior is detected and the result of that analytics is notified to the consumer, the reported exceptions expressly including an unexpected UE location, and because Kim teaches that the resulting context transfer is what guarantees the service continuity of the user equipment: (TS 23.288, cl. 6.7.5.1, page 46, “When the NWDAF detects those UEs that deviate from the expected UE behavior, e.g. unexpected UE location, abnormal traffic pattern, wrong destination address etc., the NWDAF shall notify the result of the analytics to the consumer”; TS 23.288, cl. 6.7.5.1, page 46, “Unexpected UE location, Ping-ponging across neighboring cells”; Kim, para [0118], “necessary to guarantee the service continuity of the user equipment 50”).
Moreover, Kim discloses: transmit the event notification to a further application enablement entity. because Kim teaches that the detected location change and new target routing value are transferred onward to the edge configuration server so that a target edge enabler server can be selected: (Kim, para [0115] “transfer the changed location of the user equipment and a new target DNAI value to the ECS 30”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive the event notification of Hall in view of Kim from the deviation-from-expected-behavior analytics of TS 23.288, because doing so would have supplied the monitoring entity with a standardized and already specified indication that the UE had departed from its expected behavior, and would have predictably allowed the edge service relocation of Kim to be initiated in time to maintain the service continuity that Kim describes. Hall and Kim are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: A method of performing a network function, the method comprising: receiving a monitoring event from an application, a second network entity, or a combination thereof; determining, in response of receiving the monitoring event, an event notification related to an adaption of a behavior of at least one user equipment (UE), wherein the event notification indicates a deviation of at least one parameter that is expected to change for the at least one UE from its expected or predicted value and is determined to support maintenance of service continuity for at least one application of the at least one UE; and transmitting the event notification to a further application enablement entity. Claim 16 is analogous to claim 15 and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 17, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: The method of claim 14, wherein the at least one parameter comprises: an expected mobility of the at least one UE; a predicted mobility of the at least one UE; an expected location of the at least one UE; a predicted location of the at least one UE; an expected change of speed of the at least one UE; a predicted change of speed of the at least one UE; an expected direction of the at least one UE; a predicted direction of the at least one UE; a change of a service profile of the at least one application of the at least one UE; a change of a service operation of the at least one application of the at least one UE; a confidence level of a predicted UE behavior; an expected quality of service of the at least one UE; an expected quality of service of a network device; a predicted quality of service of the at least one UE; a predicted quality of service of the network device; or a combination thereof. Claim 17 is analogous to claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 18, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The method of claim 14, wherein the event notification further comprises: a network failure, a network interface failure, an application interface failure, an edge data network unavailability indication, an edge data network failure indication, or a combination thereof. Claim 18 is analogous to claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 4-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 2021/0337043 A1) in view of Kim (US 2021/0352156 A1) and further in view of 3GPP TS 23.288 V16.4.0 (ETSI TS 123 288 V16.4.0, July 2020) and further in view of Young (US 10,841,974 B1).
Regarding claim 4, (Previously Presented) even though Hall in view of Kim and further in view of TS 23.288 teaches the edge support service modification and the identifiers and addresses exchanged in carrying it out: (Hall, para [0100], [0101]; Kim, para [0013], [0099], [0118]; TS 23.288, cl. 6.7.5.1, page 46), the combination does not explicitly disclose that the modification request carries a target network slice selection assistance information, a target data network name, or an update of a predictive timer or time range per event notification.
However, Hall in view of Kim and TS 23.288 and further in view of Young discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the edge support service modification comprises a request to an application entity, wherein the request comprises: an application identifier; a UE identifier; an edge support service modification type flag; an edge support service session identifier; an application context transfer start time; an application context transfer completion time; an edge enabler client context relocation start time; an edge enabler client context relocation completion time; a target edge application server identifier; a target edge application server address; an edge enabler server identifier; an edge enabler server address; a target single network slice selection assistance information; a target data network name; an update of a predictive timer per event notification; an update of a time range per event notification; or a combination thereof. because Young teaches that the session mobility function is configured with policies that use a network slice identifier and a data network name associated with the application service session, and that a timer is maintained for the duration of the session relocation service whose value is configured and adjusted and may be indicated by the network slice selection assistance information: (Young, col. 14, lines 3-7, “A/SMF 140 may be configured with one or more policies to use a MEC network slice ID and/or a DNN associated with the application service session”; Young, col. 14, lines 53-59, “A/SMF 140 may maintain a timer for a duration of the session relocation service”; Young, col. 14, lines 55-59, “a timer value may be configured and/or adjusted for each source AF 126-1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry, in the modification request of Hall in view of Kim and TS 23.288, the slice and data-network identifiers and the relocation timer values taught by Young, because Young teaches that those very parameters govern the address selection and the duration of the relocation service, and because including them in the request would have predictably allowed the receiving entity to apply the correct slice and data network and to bound the relocation in time. Hall, Kim, and TS 23.288 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, (Previously Presented) even though Hall in view of Kim and further in view of TS 23.288 teaches the edge support service pause and the completion messaging that accompanies the relocation: (Hall, para [0100], [0101]; Kim, para [0118]; TS 23.288, cl. 6.7.5.3, page 51), the combination does not explicitly disclose that the pause request carries pause start, end and duration times or an update of a predictive timer or time range per event notification.
However, Hall in view of Kim and TS 23.288 and further in view of Young discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the edge support service pause comprises a request to the application entity comprising: an application identifier; a UE identifier; an edge support service session identifier; an event notification pause time start; an event notification pause end time; an event notification pause time duration; an event notification completion time; an application context transfer completion time; an edge enabler client context relocation pause start time; an edge enabler client context relocation end time; a target edge application server identifier; a target edge application server address; an edge enabler server identifier; an edge enabler server address; an update of a predictive timer per event notification; an update of a time range per event notification; or a combination thereof. because Young teaches a timer that is set, in response to the mobility event, for a time for performing the relocation of the application service session, and that stopping the timer ends the session relocation service while the responsible entity is released when the time has elapsed: (Young, col. 17, lines 4-9, “initiating, by the first central network device in response to the mobility event, a timer set for a time for performing a relocation of the application service session”; Young, col. 14, lines 59-60, “Stopping the timer may end the session relocation service”; Young, col. 17, lines 13-14, “releasing, by the first central network device, the first AF device when the time has elapsed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to express the pause of the edge support service in the combination using the start, duration and elapsed-time parameters of Young’s relocation timer, because Young teaches that those parameters bound the interval over which the relocation service is held open, and because carrying them in the request would have predictably allowed the receiving entity to determine when the paused interval began and when it ended. Hall, Kim, and TS 23.288 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, (Previously Presented) Hall in view of Kim and TS 23.288 and further in view of Young teaches: The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit an event notification resume trigger action to notify the application entity that the event notification is required to resume. the time-bounded pause of the edge support service set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above, namely a timer that is set in response to the mobility event for the time for performing the relocation, the stopping of that timer to end the session relocation service, the release of the responsible entity when that time has elapsed, and the signaling back to the edge enabler server when the relocation is complete: (Young, col. 17, lines 4-9, “initiating, by the first central network device in response to the mobility event, a timer set for a time for performing a relocation of the application service session”; Young, col. 14, lines 59-60, “Stopping the timer may end the session relocation service”; Young, col. 17, lines 13-14, “releasing, by the first central network device, the first AF device when the time has elapsed”; Kim, para [0118], “the existing first EAS 101 may inform the first EES 100 of the completion”). The combination does not explicitly disclose the transmission of an event notification resume trigger action notifying the application entity that the event notification is required to resume.
It would nevertheless have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit, upon the close of that bounded interval, an indication to the application entity that the event notification is required to resume. The pause the combination teaches is expressly finite: Young sets the timer for a stated time, stops it to end the relocation service, and releases the responsible entity once that time has elapsed, and Kim signals the completion of the relocation back to the enabler server. A pause that is defined by a start, a duration and an elapsed-time release leaves the artisan only a small and finite number of choices as to the reporting that the pause interrupted once the interval closes -- that the reporting remain suspended, which would defeat the very monitoring on which the relocation of the combination depends, or that it be taken up again. Selecting the latter, and communicating it to the same application entity that was informed of the pause, is the complementary half of the pause the art already teaches and is accomplished by no more than the completion signaling Kim already performs at the end of the relocation.
Thus, the result is predictable and involves no more than the application of a known technique to a known arrangement ready for the improvement: the notification flow that the pause interrupted is restored at a defined time known to both entities. See MPEP 2143(A), (D) and (E). Hall, Kim, TS 23.288, and Young are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 5 above.
Regarding claim 19, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The method of claim 14, wherein the edge support service modification comprises a request to an application entity, wherein the request comprises: an application identifier; a UE identifier; an edge support service modification type flag; an edge support service session identifier; an application context transfer start time; an application context transfer completion time; an edge enabler client context relocation start time; an edge enabler client context relocation completion time; a target edge application server identifier; a target edge application server address; an edge enabler server identifier; an edge enabler server address; a target single network slice selection assistance information; a target data network name; an update of a predictive timer per event notification; an update of a time range per event notification; or a combination thereof. Claim 19 is analogous to claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 20, (Previously Presented) the claim recites: The method of claim 14, wherein the edge support service pause comprises a request to the application entity comprising: an application identifier; a UE identifier; an edge support service session identifier; an event notification pause time start; an event notification pause end time; an event notification pause time duration; an event notification completion time; an application context transfer completion time; an edge enabler client context relocation pause start time; an edge enabler client context relocation end time; a target edge application server identifier; a target edge application server address; an edge enabler server identifier; an edge enabler server address; an update of a predictive timer per event notification; an update of a time range per event notification; or a combination thereof. Claim 20 is analogous to claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/KODZOVI ACOLATSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights