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 .
This communication is response to claims filed on 09/23/24.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement’s
4. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 05/29/25 & 04/28/26 have being considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Priority
5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawing
6. The drawings filed on 09/23/24 are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
7. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggested to change the title to “APPLICATION CONTEXT RELOCATION MODE SELECTION BASED ON REFERENE INFORMATION”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims Objections
8. Claims 1-18 are objected to because of minor informalities:
9. Claim 1, in part, recites, “…the ACR mode…in line 9. For consistency and clarification with “a first ARC mode” recited in claim 1, line 8, it is suggested to change “the ACR mode” in line 9, to “the first ACR mode”.
10. Claims 5, 9, 10, 14 & 18 are also objected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
11. Claims 2-9 & 11-18 are also objected since they are dependent upon objected independent claims set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
13. Claims 1-3, 8-12 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (hereinafter referred as Kim) International Publication No. WO 2021/137579 A1, in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter referred as Zhang) International Publication No. WO 2021/223637 A1.
Regarding claims 1 & 10: Kim discloses an apparatus (See FIG. 10 & Page 16; a terminal), comprising:
at least one processor (See FIG. 10 & Page 16; a terminal includes a control unit); and
a memory (See FIG. 10 & Page 16; a terminal includes a storage unit) storing instructions that are executable by the at least one processor, the instructions including instructions for:
obtaining reference information (See FIG. 2 & Claims 1-6; the terminal/EEC supplying information concerning whether an application-context-relocation procedure can be initiated. The first server receives that information and determines second information concerning the relocation procedure based on it),
sending the reference information to a first device (See FIG. 2, claim 6 & Pages 6-7; the terminal transmitting first information concerning whether the ACR procedure can be initiated to the first server); and
receiving a first ACR mode from the first device (See FIG. 2 & Pages 6-7; the EES notifying the EEC and EAS of the selected/set relocation mode; the EEC sets the relocation mode based on information received from the EES), wherein the first ACR mode is determined based on the reference information (See Pages 6-7; the EES selects the relocation mode based on terminal capability information received from the EEC and/or EAS capability information received from the EAS), and
the ACR mode is a single-ACR mode or a multi-ACR mode (See Pages 6-7; the initiating device need not be limited to one device and expressly states that initiation from multiple devices can be allowed. It gives an example in which the EES selects a mode allowing both UE and EAS to initiate ACR).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the reference information comprises at least one of the following: a type of an application, a service continuity requirement of the application, an application context relocation (ACR) mode indicated by a client, an ACR mode indicated by a server, an ACR scenario indicated by the client, or an ACR scenario indicated by the server.
However, Zhang from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the reference information comprises at least one of the following: a type of an application (See Page 10; application migration request carrying application requirements including application type or service type, media type, bandwidth requirement and delay requirement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the reference information comprises at least one of the following: a type of an application as taught by Zhang in the system of Kim for determining appropriate application relocation behavior in determining the target EAS (See Pages 10-11).
Regarding claims 2 & 11: The combination of Kim and Zhang disclose an apparatus/a method.
Furthermore, Kim discloses the apparatus/method, wherein: the first ACR mode is the multi-ACR mode, and the instructions further include instructions for: receiving at least two ACR scenarios in the multi-ACR mode from the first device; or the first ACR mode is the single-ACR mode, and the instructions further include instructions for: one ACR scenario in the single-ACR mode from the first device (See FIG. 2 & Pages 6-9; It gives the concrete example of an EES selecting a relocation mode allowing both the UE and EAS to initiate. It also describes different initiation conditions, such as EEC initiation following departure from a service area and EAS initiation where the application-client service cannot be provided because of load).
Regarding claims 3 & 12: The combination of Kim and Zhang disclose an apparatus/a method.
Furthermore, Kim discloses the apparatus/method, wherein: the ACR scenario indicated by the client comprises at least one of the following: an ACR scenario supported by the client, an ACR scenario determined based on the ACR scenario supported by the client, or an ACR scenario determined based on the type of the application or the service continuity requirement of the application; or the ACR scenario indicated by the server comprises at least one of the following: an ACR scenario supported by the server, an ACR scenario determined based on the ACR scenario supported by the server, or an ACR scenario determined based on the type of the application or the service continuity requirement of the application (See Steps 3-4; The EES determines which device is allowed to initiate ACR based upon received terminal/EAS ACR-initiation capability information. Kim expressly identifies terminal movement and loss of EAS service capability as different circumstances requiring ACR) OR (See Zhang; Steps 3-4; Its migration request can contain application requirements including application/service type, media type, bandwidth requirement and delay requirement; EES2 then determines the migration target EAS according to UE information or application requirements).
Regarding claims 8 & 17: The combination of Kim and Zhang disclose an apparatus/a method.
Furthermore, Kim discloses the apparatus/method, wherein the apparatus is an edge enabler client (EEC) (See Page 6; EEC).
Regarding claims 9 & 18: The combination of Kim and Zhang disclose an apparatus/a method.
Furthermore, Kim discloses the apparatus/method, wherein obtaining the reference information comprises: configuring, by the EEC, the ACR mode indicated by the client or the ACR scenario indicated by the client, wherein the client is the EEC; or receiving, by the EEC, at least one of the following information from an application client (AC): the type of the application, the service continuity requirement of the application, the ACR mode indicated by the client, or the ACR scenario indicated by the client, wherein the client is the AC (See pages 6-7; application client).
Regarding claim 19: Kim discloses a system, comprising:
a first device (corresponding to EES); and a second device (Corresponding to terminal/EEC) (See Pages 6-7; first-server method receives information from a terminal/application server and sends resulting relocation information back to them);
wherein the first device is configured to:
obtain reference information See FIG. 2 & Claims 1-6; the terminal/EEC supplying information concerning whether an application-context-relocation procedure can be initiated. The first server receives that information and determines second information concerning the relocation procedure based on it),
determine a first ACR mode for the application based on the reference information (See FIG. 2 & Pages 6-7; the EES selects a relocation mode based on capability information received from the EEC and EAS. It further explains that the mode can be configured per application, including different modes for different EASs),
wherein the first ACR mode is a single-ACR mode or a multi-ACR mode (See Pages 6-7; the initiating device need not be limited to one device and expressly states that initiation from multiple devices can be allowed. It gives an example in which the EES selects a mode allowing both UE and EAS to initiate ACR); and
wherein the second device is configured to:
obtain the reference information (See Pages 6-7; teaches the EEC possessing/obtaining information concerning the terminal's ability to initiate ACR. The terminal method expressly includes transmitting first information indicating whether an application-context-relocation procedure can be initiated to the first server);
send the reference information to a first device (See Pages 6-7; the terminal transmits first information concerning whether an ACR procedure can be initiated to the first server); and
receive the first ACR mode from the first device (See Pages 6-7; After selecting/adjusting the relocation mode, the EES notifies the EEC and EAS of the selected relocation mode. WO ’579 further states that the EEC sets its relocation mode by reflecting the information received from the EES).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the reference information comprises at least one of the following: a type of an application, a service continuity requirement of the application, an application context relocation (ACR) mode indicated by a client, an ACR mode indicated by a server, an ACR scenario indicated by the client, or an ACR scenario indicated by the server.
However, Zhang from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the reference information comprises at least one of the following: a type of an application (See Page 10; application migration request carrying application requirements including application type or service type, media type, bandwidth requirement and delay requirement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the reference information comprises at least one of the following: a type of an application as taught by Zhang in the system of Kim for determining appropriate application relocation behavior in determining the target EAS (See Pages 10-11).
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Kim and Zhang disclose an apparatus/a method.
Furthermore, Kim discloses the apparatus/method, the ACR scenario indicated by the client comprises at least one of the following: an ACR scenario supported by the client, an ACR scenario determined based on the ACR scenario supported by the client, or an ACR scenario determined based on the type of the application or the service continuity requirement of the application; or the ACR scenario indicated by the server comprises at least one of the following: an ACR scenario supported by the server, an ACR scenario determined based on the ACR scenario supported by the server, or an ACR scenario determined based on the type of the application or the service continuity requirement of the application (See Steps 3-4; The EES determines which device is allowed to initiate ACR based upon received terminal/EAS ACR-initiation capability information. Kim expressly identifies terminal movement and loss of EAS service capability as different circumstances requiring ACR) OR (See Zhang; Steps 3-4; Its migration request can contain application requirements including application/service type, media type, bandwidth requirement and delay requirement; EES2 then determines the migration target EAS according to UE information or application requirements).
14. Claims 4-7 & 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Zhang, further in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter referred as Lee) International Publication No. WO 2021/040334 A1.
Regarding claims 4 & 13: The combination of Kim and Zhang disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with an exception of wherein the second device is an application client (AC).
However, Lee from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the second device is an application client (AC) (See Claims 16-17 & 20; a UE having one or more application clients and an EEC, wherein the application client determines whether application-context relocation is required).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second device is an application client (AC) as taught by Lee in the combined system of Zhang and Kim for providing a service to an electronic device in an edge computing system (See technical Field; 1-2).
Regarding claims 5 & 14: The combination of Kim, Zhang and Lee disclose the apparatus/method.
Furthermore, Kim disclose the apparatus/method, wherein obtaining the reference information comprises: configuring at least one of the following information: the type of the application, the service continuity requirement of the application, the ACR mode indicated by the client, or the ACR scenario indicated by the client, wherein the client is the AC (See Pages 6-9; the EEC determines whether an application client in the terminal is capable of initiating an application-context-relocation procedure and transmits corresponding capability information to the EES. Kim further teaches monitoring or reporting a relocation requirement from the application client and configuring the application client based on relocation-mode information).
Regarding claims 6 & 15: The combination of Kim, Zhang and Lee disclose the apparatus/method.
Furthermore, Kim disclose the apparatus/method, wherein the first device is any one of the following: an edge enabler client (EEC), an edge enabler server (EES), or an edge application server (EAS), and sending the reference information to the first device comprises at least one of the following: when the first device is the EEC, sending, by the AC, the reference information to the EEC; when the first device is the EES, sending, by the AC, the reference information to the EES via the EEC; or when the first device is the EAS, sending, by the AC, the reference information to the EAS via the EEC and the EES (See claims 16-17 & 20; teaches the conventional AC/EEC/EES/EAS architecture and communication of application-context-relocation information through the EEC and EES to an EAS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first device is any one of the following: an edge enabler client (EEC) and sending the reference information to the first device comprises at least one of the following: when the first device is the EEC, sending, by the AC, the reference information to the EEC; when the first device is the EES, sending, by the AC, the reference information to the EES via the EEC; or when the first device is the EAS, sending, by the AC, the reference information to the EAS via the EEC and the EES as taught by Lee in the combined system of Zhang and Kim for providing a service to an electronic device in an edge computing system (See technical Field; 1-2).
Regarding claims 7 & 16: The combination of Kim, Zhang and Lee disclose the apparatus/method.
Furthermore, Kim disclose the apparatus/method, wherein the first device is any one of the following: an edge enabler client (EEC), an edge enabler server (EES), or an edge application server (EAS), and receiving the first ACR mode from the first device comprises at least one of the following: when the first device is the EEC, receiving, by the AC, the first ACR mode from the EEC; when the first device is the EES, receiving, by the AC, the first ACR mode from the EES via the EEC; or when the first device is the EAS, receiving, by the AC, the first ACR mode from the EAS via the EEC and the EES (See claims 16-17 & 20; teaches the conventional AC/EEC/EES/EAS architecture and communication of application-context-relocation information through the EEC and EES to an EAS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first device is any one of the following: an edge enabler client (EEC), an edge enabler server (EES), or an edge application server (EAS), and receiving the first ACR mode from the first device comprises at least one of the following: when the first device is the EEC, receiving, by the AC, the first ACR mode from the EEC; when the first device is the EES, receiving, by the AC, the first ACR mode from the EES via the EEC; or when the first device is the EAS, receiving, by the AC, the first ACR mode from the EAS via the EEC and the EES as taught by Lee in the combined system of Zhang and Kim for providing a service to an electronic device in an edge computing system (See technical Field; 1-2).
Conclusion
15. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Sundararaman et al. 2012/0020250 A1 (Title: Shared task parameters in a scheduled of a network processor) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Baruch et al. 2008/0165795 A1 (Title: Device and method for processing data chunks) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Hussain et al. 2006/0075119 A1 (Title: TCP Host) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights