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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant first argues that Kim2 is does not satisfy the earliest priority date of the instant application. The references to Kim2 have been removed, and another reference has been cited for the very well-known application of edge services federations that Kim2 was relied upon, thus necessitating a non-final Office Action.
On pages 7-8 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that the rejection fails to address that the “response to the provisioning request includes the first and second parameters i) and ii) indicating information related to a second network function implementing an Edge Enabler Server (EES) managed by the first network function, and a second parameter indicating information related to a third network function implementing an EES managed by a fourth network function implementing an ECS,” as in claim 1. First, it is noted that “information related to,” in itself, does not specifically provide for what that information is, and thus is broader than providing the second and third network functions or some other information that identifies such. Further, “indicating” does not provide for how such is indicated, and thus makes the claim term even broader. In the case of Kim, the simply providing the listing of EESs would meet the claim language, as the parameters do not need to identify the specific network functions or anything else. Instead, the parameters only need to somehow “indicate” some information “related” to the second and third network functions, where listing EESs would at least indicate some information related to functions. Applicant should amend the instant claim to clearly reflect what the parameters are or what information actually is relayed instead of reciting information is indicated by the parameters, where the information is only somehow related to the functions.
Accordingly, the instant claims stand rejected for the reasons provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 60 appears to only provide the relationship of the components recited as part of the receiving step of claim 1, but as a listing instead of integrated in the details of components related to the information that is indicated by the parameters. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 hall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 55, and 60-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0307089 (Kim).
With regard to claim 1, Kim discloses a method performed by a functional component implementing an enabler function in a User Equipment (UE), comprising:
transmitting, to a first network function implementing an Edge Configuration Server (ECS), a first request message for service provisioning (Kim: Figure 7, 705); and
receiving, from the first network function, a first response message including a first parameter indicating information related to a second network function implementing an Edge Enabler Server (EES) managed by the first network function, and a second parameter indicating information related to a third network function implementing an EES managed by a fourth network function implementing an ECS (Kim: Figure 7 and Paragraph [0078]. Kim discloses that a listing of EESs may be provided to the client. As a note, “first,” “second,” “third,” and “fourth” do not require any of the elements be separate from each other, such that a “third” may be the same as the “first,” lacking any explicit (e.g. wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth network functions are separate from each other) or implicit (e.g. interaction details or structural details are provided that require that the components are separate from each other).).
With regard to claim 5, Kim discloses transmitting, to the second network function, a second request message for Edge Application Server (EAS) discovery, the second request message includes the second parameter; and receiving, from the second network function, a second response message including information related to one or more EASs (Kim: Paragraph [0107]).
With regard to claim 6, Kim discloses wherein: the first request message is a service provisioning request message over Edge-4 reference point; the first response message is a service provisioning response message over Edge-4 reference point; the second request message is an EAS discovery request message over Edge-1 reference point; and/or the second response message is an EAS discovery response message over Edge-1 reference point (Kim: Paragraph [0107], pages 4-5, Table 1, and Figure 1.).).
With regard to claim 7, Kim discloses, wherein the second parameter is received transparently to the functional component (Kim: Figure 7 and Paragraph [0078]. The receiving of alternate ECS choices does not appear to be specifically requested for. Further, the “functional component” implements “an enabler function,” where the enabler function would be the edge enabler client of Kim, which is executed by the UE (which, in itself, or a processor of such would constitute a “functional component”), where there does not appear to be any requirement that the UE or the processor of the UE, as a whole, have explicit awareness of the list, and thus such would be “transparent” to the functional component that implements the edge enable client.).
With regard to claim 55, the instant claim is similar to claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claim 60, the instant claim is within the scope of claim 1, and is thus rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claim 61, Kim discloses that the first network function and the second network function are part of a first operator platform (OP); and the third network function and the fourth network function are part of a second OP (Kim: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0032]. The term “platform” does not present whether this is a single device, a network, an architecture, etc. Further, “first” and “second” does not necessarily mean that the items are separate. Thus, the only requirement of the instant claim would appear to be that there are one or two operators, with the first and second network functions being with a same operator and the third and fourth network functions being with a same operator with each other, where the functions may be with the same or different two operators. In the case of Kim, there may be one operator.).
With regard to claim 62, Kim discloses transmitting, to the second network function, a second request message for service provisioning, the second request message including the information related to the third network function (Kim: Paragraphs [0016] and [0076]).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9, 11-13, and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ahmed et al. in “A Stackelberg Game-Based Dynamic Resource Allocation in Edge Federated 5G Network”, Published 1/28/2022 (Ahmed).
With regard to claim 2, Kim fails to disclose, but Ahmed teaches wherein the first network function has an edge service federation with the fourth network function (Ahmed: Abstract and Pages 1-2, Introduction. Edge federations were known in the art.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the first network function have an edge service federation with the fourth network function to provide better coverage and service, such as when another edge service in the federation would have better connectivity than the first edge service.
With regard to claim 3, Kim in view of Ahmed fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the edge service federation is to be used by the second network function for validating the third network function (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that validating members of a federation using the federation (e.g. to confirm that a node is currently a valid member of the federation prior to communication with that node) was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the federation for validating the third network function to ensure that the third network function is currently available to be used based on membership in the federation. As a note, as amended, the instant claim now presents an intended use outside of the method of the edge service federation, and thus has questionable weight.
With regard to claim 9, the instant claim is substantially within the scope of claim 2 (and claim 1, from which claim 2 depends), and is thus rejected for similar reasons as presented above with regard to claim 2, and claim 1, from which claim 2 depends.
With regard to claim 11, the instant claim adds subject matter included in the recitation of claim 1, and is thus rejected for similar reasons as addressed in claim 2, from which claim 1 depends.
With regard to claim 12, the instant claim adds subject matter included in the recitation of claim 6, and is thus rejected for similar reasons as presented with regard to a combination of claims 6 and claim 2 (which depends from claim 1).
With regard to claim 13, the instant claim is similar to claims 7 and 8, in the alternative, and is thus rejected for similar reasons as claim 7, as only one of the two embodiments claimed need to be disclosed by the prior art to disclose the claimed invention, as a whole.
With regard to claim 59, Kim fails to teach, but Ahmed teaches that the first network function, the second network function, the third network function, and the fourth network function are separate (Ahmed: Abstract and Pages 1-2, Introduction. First, Ahmed presents the use of a federation, which allows for the separation of functions. Second, the mere separation of functions to be distributed in networking was extremely well-known.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the functions be separate as a design choice and to allow for the dividing of tasks, such that the functions would be able to execute in parallel separately from the other functions and/or utilize different sets of resources.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ahmed, and further in view of US 2009/0043882 (Hibbets).
With regard to claim 4, Kim in view of Ahmed fails to teach, but Hibbets teaches, wherein the edge service federation is a Service Layer Agreement (SLA) (Hibbets: Paragraph [0021]. A federation can be formed as part of a SLA.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the federation be a SLA to ensure that any requirements of the federation can be properly fulfilled by any nodes that are to be included in the federation.
With regard to claim 10, the instant claim is similar to claim 4, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2022/0116774 (Rajadurai).
With regard to claim 8, Kim fails to teach, but Rajadurai teaches wherein the second parameter is included in an access token generated by the first network function (Rajadurai: Paragraph [0068]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an access token with second information (e.g. information for accessing an EES) to enable the client to efficiently convey that the UE is authorized to access the ECS (Rajadurai: Paragraph [0082]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights