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 status in the amendment received on 4/9/2026:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 14-16 have been amended.
Claims 3, 5, and 11 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10 and 12-16 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are allowed.
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) 1-2, 4, 9-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Technical Specification (Architecture for enabling Edge Applications, 3GPP TS 23.558 V17.3.0 Release 17, “TS” hereinafter) in view of China Mobile (Solution for KI#12- EAS discovery for different users, 3GPP TSG-SA WG6 Meeting #46-e, “CM” hereinafter).
As to claim 1, TS teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by an edge configuration server (ECS), a first request message, wherein the first request message is used to request to discover an edge enabler server (EES), wherein the EES is configured to determine an edge application server (EAS) to serve a plurality of terminal devices, wherein the first request message comprises information about a terminal device (pg. 129, “1. Retrieve EES request”, “The ECS determines T-EES(s) as per the parameters ( e.g. EASlD, target DNAI) in the request and the UE location information”);
determining, by the ECS, the EES based on the information about the terminal device (pg. 129, “2. Determine target EES”); and
sending, by the ECS, a first response message, wherein the first response message comprises information about the EES (pg. 129, “3. Retrieve EES response”).
TS does not explicitly teach determining EES based on terminal device group.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer network) CM teaches receiving, by a first server, a first request message, wherein the first request message is used to request to discover a second server, wherein the first request message comprises information about a terminal device group, and wherein the terminal device group comprises a plurality of terminal devices (fig. 7.x.2.2, “EAS discovery request” teaches the first request, and section 7.x.2.1, “…For example, for the same application, premium users and common users belong to different groups and are tagged by different group identifier..”);
determining, by the first server, the second server based on the information about the terminal device group (section 7.x.2.2, “Upon receiving the request from the EEC, EES checked if the EEC is authorized to discover the EAS, then EES checks the user group based on the EEC ID according to user group information, then the EAS discovery is executed based on user group and EAS discovery filters.”);
Based on TS in view of CM, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determining server based on terminal device group (taught by CM) with the service discovery request message to determine EES (taught by TS) in order to allow different users to access different EES based on different services associated with each user group.
As to claim 2, CM further teaches wherein the information about the terminal device group comprises a group identifier, and wherein the group identifier identifies the terminal device group (section 7.x.2.2 “the UE identifier and determine which group the UE belongs to by retrieving the corresponding user group information, then EES will find the suitable EAS according to the group it belongs to”). The limitations of claim 2 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 1 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
As to claim 4, TS teaches wherein the first request message comprises second discovery information indicating a service range expected by the plurality of terminal devices (pg. 74, “discovery filters”); and
wherein the determining, by the ECS, the EES based on the information about the terminal device comprises:
determining, by the ECS, the EES based on the information about the terminal device and the second discovery information (pg. 68, 8.5.2.2 “The EEC sends an EAS discovery request to the EES. The EAS discovery request includes the requestor identifier LEECID] along with the security credentials and may include EAS discovery filters and may also include UE location to retrieve information about particular EAS(s) or a category of EASs, e.g. gaming applications, or Edge Applications Server(s) available in certain service areas, e.g. available on a UE's predicted or expected route.”).
TS does not explicitly teach determining EES based on terminal device group.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer network) CM further teaches wherein the determining, by the first server, the second server based on the information about the terminal device group comprises: determining, by the first server, the second server based on the information about the terminal device group (section 7.x.2.1, “…For example, for the same application, premium users and common users belong to different groups and are tagged by different group identifier..”, and section 7.x.2.2, “Upon receiving the request from the EEC, EES checked if the EEC is authorized to discover the EAS, then EES checks the user group based on the EEC ID according to user group information, then the EAS discovery is executed based on user group and EAS discovery filters.”).
Based on TS in view of CM, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determining server based on terminal device group (taught by CM) with the service discovery request message to determine EES (taught by TS) in order to allow different users to access different EES based on different services associated with each user group.
As to claim 9, TS further teaches an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor (pg. 129, “The ECS”). Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 are substantially similar to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claims 10 and 12, the limitations of the claims are substantially similar to claims 2 and 4, respectively. Please refer to each respective claim above.
As to claim 13, CM further teaches wherein the first request message is from a first terminal device, wherein the first response message is sent to the first terminal device, and wherein the plurality of terminal devices comprise the first terminal device (section 7.x.2.1, “the user group information is introduced to achieve service differentiation. The user group information indicating the correlation between the UE identifer and the group it belongs to. For example, for the same application, premium users and common users belong to different groups and are tagged by different group identifier” and fig. 7.x.2.2).The limitations of claim 13 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 9 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 9, applies here as well.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, EST.
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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights