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 .
Claim Status
Claims 3, 6, 16-17, 21-24, 29-30, 33 have been amended. Claims 7-13, 18-20, 25-28, 31-32 have been cancelled. Claims 34-36 have been added. Thus, claims 1-6, 14-17, 21-24, 29-30, 33-36 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claims 21-24, 29-30, 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 21:
At line 1, this claim seems to be an independent claim; however, at line 3, it refers to claim 1. Hence, it is unclear whether it is an independent or dependent claim.
At line 1, the claim seems to be an apparatus claim, but by referring to method claim 1, it is unclear whether it is an apparatus or method claim.
For claim 22:
It is unclear whether this claim is an apparatus or method claim.
It is unclear whether this claim depends upon claim 21 or claim 2.
For claim 23:
It is unclear whether it is an independent or dependent claim.
It is unclear whether it is an apparatus or method claim.
For claim 24:
It is unclear whether this claim is an apparatus or method claim.
It is unclear whether this claim depends upon claim 23 or claim 5.
For claim 29:
It is unclear whether it is an independent or dependent claim.
It is unclear whether it is an apparatus or method claim.
For claim 33:
It is unclear whether it is an independent or dependent claim.
For claim 34:
It is unclear whether it is an independent or dependent claim.
For claim 35:
It is unclear whether it is an independent or dependent claim.
For claims 22, 24, 30:
These claims are also rejected as they depend upon a rejected claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 14-17, 21-24, 29-30, 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0134708) in view of Guim Bernat et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0144517).
Regarding claim 1, Feng teaches a wireless communication method (Figs. 1-2, 6) comprising:
receiving, by a first orchestrator from an application mobility service node, an application mobility request in response to a wireless communication terminal being out of a coverage [(orchestrator receives request when mobile terminal 110 is out of coverage [Paragraphs 65-66, 68, 73, 87, 91-92, 99, 115, 119-121, 123, 129, 133, 172, 176]); and
transmitting, by the first orchestrator to a first federator, an application instance query in response to the wireless communication terminal being out of a coverage of service areas of a source Multi-access Edge Computing, MEC, system to acquire information [(as in Fig. 1, the orchestrator and federator exchange responses when the UE 110 is out of coverage of a MEC to acquire info and target MEC [Paragraphs 65-66, 68, 73, 87, 91-92, 99, 115, 119-121, 123, 129, 133, 172, 176]).
However, Feng does not explicitly mention: of a source Multi-access Edge Platform, MEP… of a target MEP.
Guim Bernat teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
of a source Multi-access Edge Platform, MEP… of a target MEP (for the disclosed system, a UE is detected to be out of range of a source MEP; as well as a target MEP is then used for acquiring information when an orchestrator communicates with a federator [Paragraphs 213, 257, 1279-1285]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Feng) by implementing MEP (as taught by Guim Bernat) for the purpose of attempting to access network resources (Guim Bernat – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 2, Feng further teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the application instance query comprises application information ([Paragraph 6]) and location information ([Paragraph 62]).
Regarding claim 3, Feng further teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the first orchestrator is configured to receive a query result in response to the application instance query from the first federator (Fig. 1, 120-130) and transmit the query result to the application mobility service node (120-130).
Regarding claim 4, Feng teaches a wireless communication method comprising:
forwarding, by a first federator from a first orchestrator to a second federator, an application instance query in response to a wireless communication terminal being out of a coverage of service areas of a source Multi-access Edge Computing, MEC, system to acquire information [(as in Fig. 1, the orchestrator and federator exchange responses when the UE 110 is out of coverage of a MEC to acquire info and target MEC [Paragraphs 65-66, 68, 73, 87, 91-92, 99, 115, 119-121, 123, 129, 133, 172, 176]).
However, Feng does not explicitly mention: of a target MEP.
Guim Bernat teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
of a target MEP (for the disclosed system, a UE is detected to be out of range of a source MEP; as well as a target MEP is then used for acquiring information when an orchestrator communicates with a federator [Paragraphs 213, 257, 1279-1285]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Feng) by implementing MEP (as taught by Guim Bernat) for the purpose of attempting to access network resources (Guim Bernat – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claims 5-6, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 2-3.
Regarding claim 14, Feng teaches a wireless communication method comprising:
transmitting, by an application mobility service node to a Multi-access Edge Computing, MEC, location service node or a core network ([Paragraphs 65-66, 68, 73, 87, 91-92, 99, 115-116, 119-121, 123, 129, 133, 172, 176]), [.
However, Feng does not explicitly mention: a location subscription request to subscribe a location change of a wireless communication terminal.
Guim Bernat teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
a location subscription request to subscribe a location change of a wireless communication terminal (for the disclosed system, request for identifying location change of a UE is generated [Paragraph 479]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Feng) by implementing change location identification (as taught by Guim Bernat) for the purpose of attempting to access network resources (Guim Bernat – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, Feng further teaches the wireless communication method of claim 14 or 15, wherein the location subscription request is transmitted to the core network via an MEC Orchestrator ([Paragraph 9, 100, 116, 119]).
Regarding claim 17, Guim further teaches the wireless communication method of claim 14, wherein the application mobility service node is configured to receive a notification of the location change via an MEC Orchestrator ([Paragraphs 383, 386]).
Regarding claims 21-22, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-2.
Regarding claims 23-24, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 4-5.
Regarding claim 29, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 14.
Regarding claim 30, Feng further teaches the wireless communication node of claim 29, wherein the location subscription request comprises an identifier of the wireless communication terminal ([Paragraph 12]).
Regarding claim 33, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 34, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 35, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 14.
Regarding claim 36, Feng further teaches the wireless communication method of claim 2, wherein the first orchestrator is configured to receive a query result in response to the application instance query from the first federator (in Fig. 1, 120-140) and transmit the query result to the application mobility service node (120-140).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
August 30, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights