Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIM et al. (US 2022/0015018 A1), hereinafter KIM.
Regarding claim 1, KIM discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the WTRU comprising: a processor configured to:
receive configuration information associated with one or more of a first network node, a second network node, and an application client (AC) (At item 501 of the example in FIG. 5, EEC 350 obtains EES information regarding EESes that are available in an ECA of the PLMN. For example, the EEC may perform a general service provisioning procedure prior to runtime of edge computing applications to obtain EES information, such as may comprise information regarding EES identification, EES location, EAS(es) associated with a respective EES, edge applications supported by EAS(es) associated with a respective EES, EES affiliation with a ECS, etc, see ¶ 0068);
determine the first network node and the second network node using the configuration information, wherein the second network node provides a service, and wherein the second network node is associated with the first network node (a general service provisioning procedure may, for example, be performed at a time of UE power-up, upon the UE joining the PLMN, etc. to obtain EES information. The EES information for the plurality of EESes may, for example, be stored (e.g., in an edge configuration information database) by the UE as part of the general service provisioning procedure, see ¶ 0068);
determine one or more application context relocation (ACR) procedures for providing continuity for the service based on a WTRU capability, a first network node capability, and a second network node capability (At item 504, EEC 350 may analyze the results of the EES probing and, based on or otherwise in correspondence to the EES probing results, determine a best EES which serves the same EAS profile with what the UE is using, see ¶ 0071);
send a selection request message to the first network node, wherein the selection request message indicates an identifier for the second network node, an edge enabler client (EEC) identifier associated with the WTRU, and the determined one or more ACR procedures (EEC 350 may, based upon or otherwise corresponding to the EES probing results analysis, request application context relocation using a S-EAS centric protocol at item 505 of the example of FIG. 5. For example, the EEC may provide an application context relocation request to S-EES 330a (e.g., to tell the S-EES to “please move my context to HERE,” and providing details of T-EAS and/or T-EES to which the application context is to be transferred), see ¶ 0072); and
receive a selection response message from the first network node indicating a request process status result (S-EES sends application context relocation response to EEC 511, see figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, KIM discloses the first network node is an edge enabler server (EES), and wherein the second network node is an edge application server (EAS) (edge enabler server and edge application server, see figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, KIM discloses determine a list based on service continuity capability information associated with the WTRU, the first network node, and the second network node, wherein the list comprises the determined one or more ACR procedures, and wherein the determined one or more ACR procedures are compatible with one or more of the WTRU, the AC, an EEC of the WTRU, the first network node, or the second network node (in the proposed source EAS/EES triggered application context relocation procedure, a source EAS/EES detects a need for context relocation (e.g., relying on 3GPP event exposure application programming interface (API)), the source EES interacts with a target EES having an EAS associated therewith that supports the same application, and then notifies the source EAS for transfer of the application context. In the proposed EEC triggered application context relocation procedure, an EEC detects a need for context relocation and requests a target EES and the source EES to perform application context relocation. These two proposed approaches for application context relocation procedures diverge in order to achieve service continuity requirements, see ¶ 0059).
Regarding claim 4, KIM discloses wherein determined one or more ACR procedures is further based on service continuity support information of the AC, the WTRU, the EEC, the first network node, or the second network node (in the proposed source EAS/EES triggered application context relocation procedure, a source EAS/EES detects a need for context relocation (e.g., relying on 3GPP event exposure application programming interface (API)), the source EES interacts with a target EES having an EAS associated therewith that supports the same application, and then notifies the source EAS for transfer of the application context. In the proposed EEC triggered application context relocation procedure, an EEC detects a need for context relocation and requests a target EES and the source EES to perform application context relocation. These two proposed approaches for application context relocation procedures diverge in order to achieve service continuity requirements, see ¶ 0059).
Regarding claim 5, KIM discloses detecting an ACR on a condition using the determined one or more ACR procedures (a UE triggered edge computing application context relocation procedure of some aspects of the disclosure, the UE may take more responsibility with respect to the application context transfer (e.g., to determine which EES is the best for the UE's current location, which in turn may determine a best EAS for the current location), see ¶ 0059- 0063).
Regarding claim 6. A method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
receiving configuration information associated with one or more of a first network node, a second network node, and an application client (AC) (At item 501 of the example in FIG. 5, EEC 350 obtains EES information regarding EESes that are available in an ECA of the PLMN. For example, the EEC may perform a general service provisioning procedure prior to runtime of edge computing applications to obtain EES information, such as may comprise information regarding EES identification, EES location, EAS(es) associated with a respective EES, edge applications supported by EAS(es) associated with a respective EES, EES affiliation with a ECS, etc, see ¶ 0068);
determining the first network node and the second network node using the configuration information, wherein the second network node provides a service, and wherein the second network node is associated with the first network node (a general service provisioning procedure may, for example, be performed at a time of UE power-up, upon the UE joining the PLMN, etc. to obtain EES information. The EES information for the plurality of EESes may, for example, be stored (e.g., in an edge configuration information database) by the UE as part of the general service provisioning procedure, see ¶ 0068);
determining one or more application context relocation (ACR) procedures for providing continuity for the service based on a WTRU capability, a first network node capability, and a second network node capability (At item 504, EEC 350 may analyze the results of the EES probing and, based on or otherwise in correspondence to the EES probing results, determine a best EES which serves the same EAS profile with what the UE is using, see ¶ 0071);
sending a selection request message to the first network node, wherein the selection request message indicates an identifier for the second network node, an edge enabler client (EEC) identifier associated with the WTRU, and the determined one or more ACR procedures (EEC 350 may, based upon or otherwise corresponding to the EES probing results analysis, request application context relocation using a S-EAS centric protocol at item 505 of the example of FIG. 5. For example, the EEC may provide an application context relocation request to S-EES 330a (e.g., to tell the S-EES to “please move my context to HERE,” and providing details of T-EAS and/or T-EES to which the application context is to be transferred), see ¶ 0072); and
receiving a selection response message from the first network node indicating a request process status result (S-EES sends application context relocation response to EEC 511, see figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, KIM discloses the first network node is an edge enabler server (EES), and wherein the second network node is an edge application server (EAS) (edge enabler server and edge application server, see figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, KIM discloses determine a list based on service continuity capability information associated with the WTRU, the first network node, and the second network node, wherein the list comprises the determined one or more ACR procedures, and wherein the determined one or more ACR procedures are compatible with one or more of the WTRU, the AC, an EEC of the WTRU, the first network node, or the second network node (in the proposed source EAS/EES triggered application context relocation procedure, a source EAS/EES detects a need for context relocation (e.g., relying on 3GPP event exposure application programming interface (API)), the source EES interacts with a target EES having an EAS associated therewith that supports the same application, and then notifies the source EAS for transfer of the application context. In the proposed EEC triggered application context relocation procedure, an EEC detects a need for context relocation and requests a target EES and the source EES to perform application context relocation. These two proposed approaches for application context relocation procedures diverge in order to achieve service continuity requirements, see ¶ 0059).
Regarding claim 9, KIM discloses wherein determined one or more ACR procedures is further based on service continuity support information of the AC, the WTRU, the EEC, the first network node, or the second network node (in the proposed source EAS/EES triggered application context relocation procedure, a source EAS/EES detects a need for context relocation (e.g., relying on 3GPP event exposure application programming interface (API)), the source EES interacts with a target EES having an EAS associated therewith that supports the same application, and then notifies the source EAS for transfer of the application context. In the proposed EEC triggered application context relocation procedure, an EEC detects a need for context relocation and requests a target EES and the source EES to perform application context relocation. These two proposed approaches for application context relocation procedures diverge in order to achieve service continuity requirements, see ¶ 0059).
Regarding claim 10, KIM discloses detecting an ACR on a condition using the determined one or more ACR procedures (a UE triggered edge computing application context relocation procedure of some aspects of the disclosure, the UE may take more responsibility with respect to the application context transfer (e.g., to determine which EES is the best for the UE's current location, which in turn may determine a best EAS for the current location), see ¶ 0059- 0063).
Conclusion
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
The following address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) only:
Mail Stop _____________
Commissioner for Patents
P. O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob A. Phunkulh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3083. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. (first week of the bi-week) and Monday-Friday (for second week of the bi-week).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor CHARLES C. JIANG can be reach on (571) 270-7191.
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).
Prosecution Insights