Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Application 18/898,400 filed 09/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 09/26/2024 and 01/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 1 and 11 recite “transmitting a request message for storing common edge application server (EAS) bundle information” and claims 8 and 18 recite “receiving a request message for storing common edge application server (EAS) bundle information and storing the common EAS bundle information”, are directed to generic computer module interfacing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as follows:
The limitations of “transmitting/receiving a request message for storing common edge application server (EAS) bundle information” and “storing the common EAS bundle information”, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (input and output between associated users/devices/services). That is, other than reciting “a transceiver and at least one processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 11 and 18 only recite using “at least one processor” to perform both the transmitting/receiving and storing steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the transmitting/receiving and storing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17 and 19-20 do not recite limitations which amount to significantly more to overcome the deficiency of independent claims 1, 8, 11 and 18, respectively. Likewise, claims 2-7 and 9-10, while reciting method claims, and claims 12-17 and 19-20, while reciting EES and ECS (apparatus) claims, nevertheless are technically similar claims, and therefore, also describe an abstract idea of transmitting, receiving and storing data. Taken alone, or in ordered combination, none of the additional elements amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claims are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(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.
7. Claims 1-3, 8-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by QUALCOMM INC., Pseudo-CR on Support for EAS bundles spread across EDNs, S6-222305, 3DPP TSG-SA WG6 Meeting #50-e, e-meeting, 22-31 August 2022, hereinafter “QUALCOMM”.
8. As to claim 1, QUALCOMM discloses a method by an edge enabler server (EES) in a mobile edge computing system, the method comprising: transmitting, to an edge configuration server (ECS), a request message for storing common edge application server (EAS) bundle information, wherein the request message includes the common EAS bundle information, and wherein the common EAS bundle information includes at least one of EAS bundle identifier (ID) of an EAS bundle, a list of EAS ID in the EAS bundle and main EAS ID in the EAS bundle (i.e., QUALCOMM discloses that the ECS may receive the EAS bundle information from the EES during EES registration [via the EES registration request message]. Upon receiving the EAS bundle information as part of the EES registration [request message], the ECS stores the [EAS bundle] information and associates the EES with other EESs providing the same EAS bundle information, wherein the EAS bundle information can be a list of EASs or a bundle ID, see sections 7.26.2.1, 7.26.2.4; and tables 7.26.2.1-5).
9. As to claim 2, QUALCOMM discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the common EAS bundle information includes at least one of EAS bundle type of the EAS bundle, and wherein the request message includes at least one of at least one EES ID related to the EAS bundle and edge data network (EDN) information (see sections 7.26.2.1, 7.26.2.4; and tables 7.26.2.1-5).
10. As to claim 3, QUALCOMM discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the ECS supports repository function and the EES is registered in the ECS supporting the repository function, and wherein the common EAS bundle information is stored in the ECS (i.e., QUALCOMM discloses that the ECS stores the [EAS bundle] information upon receiving the EAS bundle information, hence, the ECS supports repository function, see sections 7.26.2.1, 7.26.2.4; and tables 7.26.2.1-5).
11. As to claims 8-10, ECS method claims 8-10 recite similar limitations as of EES method claims 1-3 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
12. As to claims 11-13, EES server claims 11-13 recite similar limitations as of EES method claims 1-3 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
13. As to claims 18-20, ECS server claims 18-20 recite similar limitations as of ECS method claims 8-10 (i.e., similar limitations as EES method claims 1-3) and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. Claims 4, 6, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUALCOMM, in view of Bouazizi et al. (US 2024/0396795 A1), hereinafter “Bouazizi”.
16. As to claim 4, QUALCOMM teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “receiving, from a first edge enabler client (EEC), an EAS discovery request, the EAS discovery request including first common EAS bundle information; determining a common EAS bundle for a group including a user equipment (UE) of the first EEC based on the first common EAS bundle information; and transmitting, to the first EEC, an EAS discovery response including second common EAS bundle information related to the determined common EAS bundle”.
In an analogous art, Bouazizi discloses that EEC 124 may perform an extended EAS discovery request for a bundled service. The EAS discovery request from EEC 124 to EES 136 may contain an explicit indication that indicates each EAS in a set of EASs of the EAS bundle. In response, EES 136 may provide details for each of the specified EASs associated with the bundle to EEC124. The response may include structured information that clearly indicates which EASs belong to each bundle. EES 136 may store the transaction data for short term future requests from other UE devices. Thus, future requests for EASs of the same bundle and by the same EEC (i.e., EEC 124) may be resolved to an EAS that is bundled (e.g., one that satisfies the bundle requirements) ([0036-0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bouazizi, into QUALCOMM’s to achieve “receiving, from a first edge enabler client (EEC), an EAS discovery request, the EAS discovery request including first common EAS bundle information; determining a common EAS bundle for a group including a user equipment (UE) of the first EEC based on the first common EAS bundle information; and transmitting, to the first EEC, an EAS discovery response including second common EAS bundle information related to the determined common EAS bundle” to enable future requests for EASs of the same bundle and by the same EEC may be resolved to an EAS that satisfies the bundle requirements.
17. As to claim 6, QUALCOMM-Bouazizi discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the first common EAS bundle information includes at least one of a plurality of pieces of EAS information, common bundle type information, a common bundle ID, a main EAS ID, or at least one common EAS bundle requirement (see sections 7.26.2.1, 7.26.2.4; and tables 7.26.2.1-5).
18. As to claims 14 and 16, EES server claims 14 and 16 recite similar limitations as of EES method claims 4 and 6 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
19. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUALCOMM, in view of Tang et al. (US 2025/0267617 A1), hereinafter “Tang”.
20. As to claim 5, QUALCOMM teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “transmitting, to a network entity included in a core network, an application function (AF) request for the common EAS bundle information, wherein the AF request includes at least one of a UE external group ID, a UE internal group ID, a list of UE IDs, a subscriber category, a traffic correlation indication, or an EAS correlation indication”.
In an analogous art, Tang discloses that an AF request to influence traffic routing is sent to the core network. The AF request targets a collection of UEs, identified by the group ID or specific service information. The AF request is for deleting information with traffic correlation indication and the dedicated relocation information for the collection of UEs ([0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tang, into QUALCOMM’s to achieve “transmitting, to a network entity included in a core network, an application function (AF) request for the common EAS bundle information, wherein the AF request includes at least one of a UE external group ID, a UE internal group ID, a list of UE IDs, a subscriber category, a traffic correlation indication, or an EAS correlation indication” to notify the core network (e.g. PCF) that one or more UEs no longer belong to the collection of UEs so the specific service information to associate one or more UEs for the specific application is removed from the PCF ([0100]).
21. As to claim 15, EES server claim 15 recites similar limitations as of EES method claim 5 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
22. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUALCOMM, in view of QUALCOMM, EAS bundles, S6-230689, 3GPP TSG-SA WG6 Meeting #53, Athen, Greece, 20 February 2023, hereinafter “QUALCOMM-2”.
23. As to claim 7, QUALCOMM teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “the common EAS bundle information is transmitted to a second EES receiving a common EAS discovery request from a second EEC related to a group including a first UE of the first EEC”.
In an analogous art, QUALCOMM-2 discloses that the S-EES sends the Retrieve EES request (UE location information or UE identity, EASID of the S-EAS, target DNAI, EAS bundle ID) to the ECS in order to identify the T-EES which has an EAS available to serve the given AC in the UE. The ECS determines T-EES(s) per the parameters (e.g., EASID, target DNAI) in the request and the UE location information. The ECS sends the Retrieve EES response including the list of EDN configuration information to the S-EES. The list of EDN configuration information includes the EDN details with the endpoint information of the T-EES(s) (see section 8.8.3.3). QUALCOMM-2 also discloses that the S-EES invokes the EAS discover request on the T-EES retrieved from the ECS. The EAS discover request includes the requestor identifier [EESID] along with the security credentials and includes EAS discovery filter. Upon receiving the request, the T-EES may trigger the EAS management system to instantiate the T-EAS that matches with EAS discovery filter Ies (e.g., ACID). The T-EES also considers the EAS bundle information if received in the EAS discovery request (see section 8.8.3.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of QUALCOMM-2 into QUALCOMM’s to achieve “the common EAS bundle information is transmitted to a second EES receiving a common EAS discovery request from a second EEC related to a group including a first UE of the first EEC” to enable the system to identify the T-EES which has an EAS available to serve the given AC in the UE.
24. As to claim 17, EES server claim 17 recites similar limitations as of EES method claim 7 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
25. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
26. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization 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 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). 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.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441