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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed on 7/10/26. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sodagar, US Pub. No.20230135864 in view of Gupta et al., US Pat. No.12,574,831.
As to claim 1, Sodagar discloses an edge application server discovery method, wherein
the method comprises:
sending, by an edge configuration server (ECS), a second message to a source
edge enabler server (S-EES) (303a fig.5), wherein the second message is used to
determine at least one edge enabler server (EES), an edge application server (EAS)
(302a fig.5) associated with the at least one EES corresponds to a first application
(receiving, by a source edge enabler server (EES) from a source edge application server (EAS),
a request to exchange application context data with a target EAS, see abstract, fig.5, [0086]), and the at least one EES (303b fig.5) corresponds to the first application (the application context data relating to an application which is to be transferred from the source EAS to the target EAS, the source EES may correspond to source EES 303a, the source EAS may correspond to source EAS 302a, the target EES may correspond to target EES 303b, and the target EAS may correspond to target EAS 302b, see [0086] to [0087]).
Sodagar does not specifically disclose prior to sending, the ECS has received from at least one EES, a registration message comprising EES information. However, Gupta, in a similar network environment, discloses sending, the ECS has received from at least one EES, a registration message comprising EES information (enabling interactions between the ECS (116) and the EES (114) to enable registration of the edge configuration information related to the EES (114) with the ECS, see col.7 line 38 to col.8 line 14). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Gupta’s teachings into the computer system of Sodagar to process information because it would have configured to register information related to the EAS and provide the related information related in order to establish connection between the AC and the EAS (see col.7 lines 30-37).
As to claim 2, Sodagar discloses before the sending, by an ECS, a second message to
an S-EES, the method further comprises: determining, by the ECS from the at least one
EES based on an EAS bundle identifier of the first application and an EAS bundle
identifier corresponding to the EAS associated with the EES, an EES associated with
the EAS corresponding to the first application ( a request to exchange application context attributes with the target EAS correspond to, or include, the connection information, see [0080] and claim 3).
As to claim 3, Sodagar discloses before the sending, by an ECS, a second message to
an S-EES, the method further comprises: determining, by the ECS from the at least one
EES based on an application identifier of the first application and an application
identifier corresponding to the EAS associated with the EES, an EES associated with
the EAS corresponding to the first application (see [0080-[0082]).
As to claim 4, Sodagar discloses the second message further indicates a correspondence between the first application and the EAS associated with
the at least one EES (the target EES may transmit the response to the source EES by
transmitting the response to the source EAS, see [0080]).
As to claim 5, Sodagar discloses the second message comprises at least one of the
application identifier corresponding to the EAS associated with the at least one EES and
the EAS bundle identifier corresponding to the EAS associated with the at least one
EES (processing target EES requests, see [0080] to [0081]).
As to claim 6, Sodagar discloses before the sending, by an ECS, a second message to
an S-EES, the method further comprises: receiving, by the ECS, an EES discovery
request message from the S-EES, wherein the EES discovery request message is used
to request to obtain the at least one EES from the ECS, wherein the second message is
an EES discovery response message (retrieval and provisioning of configuration information to enable the exchange of Application Data Traffic with EAS 302; and discovery of EASs 302 available in the EDN, see [0038] to [0041]).
As to claim 7, Sodagar discloses the EES discovery request message comprises at
least one of the following-information: the application identifier of the first application
and the EAS bundle identifier corresponding to the first application (see [0086]).
Claims 8-15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-7 respectively.
Claims 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1, 2, 4, 3 and 7
respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, , filed 7/10/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gupta et al., US Pat. No.12,574,831.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Umar Cheema, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. The fax phone number
for this group 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).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for patents
P O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights