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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 16, 19, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0396847).
As per claim 16:
Hu teaches a method performed by a first edge enabler client (EEC) in a wireless communication network (see paragraph [0004], teaches a method for requesting an application function. The method further includes determining to perform application server discover in advance by sending, by the enabler client, an application server discovery request message to the server, please see paragraph [0100]), the method comprising:
transmitting an edge application server (EAS) discovery request message to an edge enabler server (EES) (see Figure 2, step s101 and paragraph [0328], EEC sends an EAS discovery request message to the EES), wherein the EAS discovery request message includes grouping information (see paragraph [0330], said EAS discovery request message may include as shown in table 1 EAS discovery filter parameter indicative of Group of features for determining a needed EAS. Note: Examiner is reading said EAS discovery filter parameter as said grouping information);
receiving an EAS discovery response message from the EES (see Figure 2, step s103 and paragraph [0338], EES sends an EAS discovery response message to the EEC), wherein the EAS discovery response message includes at least one EAS and information for the at least one EAS (see paragraph [0341], said EAS discovery response message includes information about a discovered EAS and endpoint information of the EAS);
and selecting an EAS as a common EAS based on the at least one EAS received in the EAS discovery response message (see paragraph [0673], the EEC selects the target EAS based on the one or more candidate EASs fed back in the EAS discovery response message. Note: Examiner is reading said target EAS as said common EAS).
As pe claim 19:
Hu teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the grouping information (see paragraph [0033], EAS discovery filter parameter) comprises at least one of:
a grouping requirement information element (IE) (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record);
a group identifier (ID) (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record); and
a list of multi-application clients (ACs) (paragraph [0333], table 2 EAS discovery filter parameter may include application client feature list).
As per claim 25:
Hu teaches a first edge enabler client (EEC) in a wireless communication network (see Figure 1, user equipment comprising said EEC), the first EEC comprising:
a memory (see Figure 16, memory 1600);
a processor (see Figure 16, processor 1610);
an edge application server (EAS) discoverer, coupled to the memory and the processor (see Figure 1, EAS(s) connected to EEC via core network and EES(s). Thus, the memory 1600 and processor 1610 as disclosed in figure 16 are coupled to the EAS(s)), and configured to:
transmit an EAS discovery request message to an edge enabler server (EES) (see Figure 2, step s101 and paragraph [0328], EEC sends an EAS discovery request message to the EES), wherein the EAS discovery request message includes grouping information (see paragraph [0330], said EAS discovery request message may include as shown in table 1 EAS discovery filter parameter indicative of Group of features for determining a needed EAS. Note: Examiner is reading said EAS discovery filter parameter as said group information),
receive an EAS discovery response message from the EES (see Figure 2, step s103 and paragraph [0338], EES sends an EAS discovery response message to the EEC), wherein the EAS discovery response message includes at least one EAS and information for the at least one EAS (see paragraph [0341], said EAS discovery response message includes information about a discovered EAS and endpoint information of the EAS),
and select an EAS as a common EAS based on the at least one EAS received in the EAS discovery response message (see paragraph [0673], the EEC selects the target EAS based on the one or more candidate EASs fed back in the EAS discovery response message. Note: Examiner is reading said target EAS as said common EAS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Hu (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0040005), hereinafter referred to as Hu’005.
As per claim 20:
Hu teaches a method performed by a first Edge Enabler Server (EES) in a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
receiving an edge application server (EAS) discovery request message from a first edge enabler client (EEC) (see Figure 2, step s101 and paragraph [0328], EEC sends an EAS discovery request message to the EES), wherein the EAS discovery request message includes grouping information (see paragraph [0330], said EAS discovery request message may include as shown in table 1 EAS discovery filter parameter indicative of Group of features for determining a needed EAS. Note: Examiner is reading said EAS discovery filter parameter as said group information);
transmitting an EAS discovery response message to the first EEC (see Figure 2, step s103 and paragraph [0338], EES sends an EAS discovery response message to the EEC), wherein the EAS discovery response message includes at least one EAS and information for the at least one EAS (see paragraph [0341], said EAS discovery response message includes information about a discovered EAS and endpoint information of the EAS);
receiving an EAS announcement request message from the first EEC, wherein the EAS announcement request message includes a common EAS (see paragraph [0674], after selecting the EAS, the application client may declare the selected EAS to the EEC. After receiving the EAS selected by the application client, the EEC declares the selected EAS to the EES, please see paragraph [0674]), wherein the first EEC selects the common EAS from the at least one EAS (see paragraph [0673], the EEC selects the target EAS based on the one or more candidate EASs fed back in the EAS discovery message. Note: Examiner is reading said target EAS as said common EAS).
Hu does not clearly teach and determining at least one second EES to inform the common EAS.
Hu’005 teaches and determining at least one second EES to inform the common EAS (see Figure 5, step 504, paragraph [0192], the EEC sends an application context relocation request to the S-EES. See Figure 5, step 505, paragraph [0193], the S-EES indicates an S-EAS to transmit an application context, and the S-EAS transfers the application context with the T-EAS. See Figure 5, step 506, paragraph [0194], after the application context is transferred, the T-EAS sends an application context relocation complete message to a T-EES to indicate the T-EES that the application context is transferred. Note: Examiner is reading said T-EES as said second EES and said application context as the common EAS especially since the message includes a context subscription of the one or more users in an EAS and a core network, please see paragraph [0129] for example).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of application context (as disclosed in Hu’005) into Hu as a way of indicating whether a user or a group of users are subscribed (please see paragraph [0129] of Hu’005). Therefore, implementing the context transfer method helps to reduce duration of suspension or interruption of an application service in an edge application server switching process, so as to improve transfer continuity of the application service (please see paragraph [0004] of Hu’005).
As per claim 21:
Hu in view of Hu’005 teaches the method of claim 20.
Hu does not teach wherein determining the at least one second EES to inform the common EAS comprises:
transmitting an identifier (ID) of the common EAS to an edge configuration server (ECS), wherein the ECS determines the at least one second EES that serves a same ID as the common EAS;
receiving, from the ECS, an ID of the at least one second EES that has the same ID as the common EAS;
transmitting a declare common EAS request message to the at least one second EES, wherein the declare common EAS request message includes the common EAS and the grouping information; and
receiving a declare common EAS response message from the at least one second EES, wherein the declare common EAS response message includes an acknowledgement.
Hu’005 teaches wherein determining the at least one second EES to inform the common EAS comprises:
transmitting an identifier (ID) of the common EAS to an edge configuration server (ECS), wherein the ECS determines the at least one second EES that serves a same ID as the common EAS (see Figure 11A, paragraph [0317], sending information about EAS to the EEC via the ECS. The information also notifies S-EAS to start transfer of an application context);
receiving, from the ECS, an ID of the at least one second EES that has the same ID as the common EAS (see figure 11A, paragraph [0325], receiving information about the about the transfer results of the application context and the EEC context);
transmitting a declare common EAS request message to the at least one second EES, wherein the declare common EAS request message includes the common EAS and the grouping information (see Figure 11B, step 1109, paragraphs [0334]-[0335], the if the context is successfully transferred, the S-EES initiates re-transfer of the EEC context to the T-EES); and
receiving a declare common EAS response message from the at least one second EES, wherein the declare common EAS response message includes an acknowledgement (see paragraphs [0401]-[0402], disclose exchanging EEC context between S-EES and S-EAS. The T-EES indicates an application context relocation result to the EEC, please see figure 12, step 1213).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of application context (as disclosed in Hu’005) into Hu as a way of indicating whether a user or a group of users are subscribed (please see paragraph [0129] of Hu’005). Therefore, implementing the context transfer method helps to reduce duration of suspension or interruption of an application service in an edge application server switching process, so as to improve transfer continuity of the application service (please see paragraph [0004] of Hu’005).
As per claim 22:
Hu in view of Hu’005 teaches the method of claim 20.
Hu does not teach wherein receiving the EAS discovery request message from the first EEC comprises:
determining whether the common EAS is already selected for a multi-user or a multi application client (AC) session based on the grouping information; performing one of:
transmitting the common EAS to the first EEC to initiate the multi-user or the multi AC session when the common EAS is already selected for the multi-user or the multi AC session based on the grouping information; or
selecting a plurality of EAS based on the grouping information when the common EAS is not already selected for the multi-user or the multi AC session based on the grouping information; and
sending the at least one EAS to the first EEC.
Hu’005 teaches wherein receiving the EAS discovery request message from the first EEC comprises:
determining whether the common EAS is already selected for a multi-user or a multi application client (AC) session based on the grouping information; performing one of:
transmitting the common EAS to the first EEC to initiate the multi-user or the multi AC session when the common EAS is already selected for the multi-user or the multi AC session based on the grouping information (see Figure 12, step 1215, the T-EES indicates the EEC to subscribe to the required service from the T-EES); or
selecting a plurality of EAS based on the grouping information when the common EAS is not already selected for the multi-user or the multi AC session based on the grouping information (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record); and
sending the at least one EAS to the first EEC (see Figure 12, step 1213, the T-EES indicates the application context relocation result to the EEC).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the transmission of application context (as disclosed in Hu’005) into Hu as a way of indicating whether a user or a group of users are subscribed (please see paragraph [0129] of Hu’005). Therefore, implementing the context transfer method helps to reduce duration of suspension or interruption of an application service in an edge application server switching process, so as to improve transfer continuity of the application service (please see paragraph [0004] of Hu’005).
As per claim 23:
Hu in view of Hu’005 teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the grouping information comprises at least one of:
a grouping requirement information element (IE) (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record);
a group identifier (ID) (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record);
and a list of application clients (ACs) (Hu, paragraph [0333], table 2 EAS discovery filter parameter may include application client feature list).
5. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Roy (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0269300).
As per claim 17:
Hu teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising:
transmitting an EAS announcement request message to the EES, wherein the EAS announcement request message includes the common EAS (see paragraph [0674], after selecting the EAS, the application client may declare the selected EAS to the EEC. After receiving the EAS selected by the application client, the EEC declares the selected EAS to the EES, please see paragraph [0674]).
Hu does not teach and the grouping information;
and receiving an EAS announcement response message from the EES, wherein the EAS announcement response message includes an acknowledgement.
Roy teaches and the grouping information (see paragraph [0097], disclose identifying all impacted S-EAS with the associated UE identifier);
and receiving an EAS announcement response message from the EES, wherein the EAS announcement response message includes an acknowledgement (see paragraph [0139], once all AFS have sent a positive response, the 5GC may send a PDU session modification command to the EEC which will send an acknowledgement back to the 5GC).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the usage parameters (as disclosed in Roy) into Hu as a way of defining the WTRU behavior in terms of edge application usage (please see paragraph [0130] of Roy).
As per claim 18:
Hu in view of Roy teaches the method of claim 17.
Hu does not clearly teach wherein the EAS announcement request message further includes at least one of an application client (AC) identifier (ID), an EAS ID, or an EAS endpoint.
Roy teaches wherein the EAS announcement request message further includes at least one of an application client (AC) identifier (ID) (see paragraph [0134], the message may contain an AC identifier (if available)), an EAS ID (see paragraph [0123], EAS identifier), or an EAS endpoint (Note: limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the usage parameters (as disclosed in Roy) into Hu as a way of defining the WTRU behavior in terms of edge application usage (please see paragraph [0130] of Roy).
6. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Hu’005 and further in view of Roy.
As per claim 24:
Hu in view of Hu’005 teaches the method of claim 20 with the exception of:
wherein the EAS announcement request message further includes at least one of an application client (AC) identifier (ID), an EAS ID, or an EAS endpoint.
Roy teaches Roy teaches wherein the EAS announcement request message further includes at least one of an application client (AC) identifier (ID) (see paragraph [0134], the message may contain an AC identifier (if available)), an EAS ID (see paragraph [0123], EAS identifier), or an EAS endpoint (Note: limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the usage parameters (as disclosed in Roy) into Hu and Hu’005 as a way of defining the WTRU behavior in terms of edge application usage (please see paragraph [0130] of Roy).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE AKWASI MENSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
PRINCE AKWASI. MENSAH
Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/PRINCE A MENSAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights