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 .
Response to Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to the Amendment filed on 8/6/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1] application argues: (summary Remarks 8/6/26, pg 5-7)(emphasis added)
...
Claim 1 is allowable over the combination of Kim-805 and Samsung because the combination fails to teach all features of the claim. Specifically, the combination of Kim-805 and Samsung fails to teach at least "determining whether the ACR is needed in an Edge Data Network, EDN; [and] providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS, notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed.”
The Patent Office admits that Kim-805 does not teach this request message. In an attempt to remedy this deficiency, the Patent Office refers to Samsung: section 7.x.1, pg 2-3: fig 7.x.1-1 step 2. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
...
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per the office action (non-final 5/6/26, pg 5-7), Kim-805 discloses a UE supporting edge computing system may have a built-in EEC (edge enabling client) (determining ... in an Edge Data Network, EDN) (Kim-805: [0054]).
Furthermore, per the office action (non-final 5/6/26, pg 5-7), Kim-805 discloses providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR, notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed (Kim-805: fig 1-19, [0019-180]: fig 7 ... In step 0, the source EES may determine a relocation mode and transmit the relocation mode to the EEC and the source EAS [0165] ... step 1 the application context relocation procedure may be initiated or triggered in the EEC, source EAS and/or source EES (providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR ...) [0166] ... and receive a context relocation request from a EEC in step 2A ... source EES may determine a device EEC or source EAS to transmit the relocation in-progress indication (... notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed) [0167] [0057;114]).
In other words, the examiner recited Kim-805 as teaching a request message. However, Kim-805 did not explicitly disclose providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS, notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed (emphasis added).
For clarity, Samsung discloses providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS, notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed (emphasis added) (Samsung: section 7.x.1, pg 2-3: fig 7.x.1-1 step 2 Edge Enabler Client (EEC) sends the Context relocation request (... a request message to request the ACR ...) (UE info, source Edge Application Server info... (comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS), source EES info, Application ID, Edge Enabler Client Registration Context ID) (... a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS) to the target EES (providing, to an EDN node ...) and step 3 ... target EES sends the application context relocation request (UE info, source Edge Application Server info) to the determined target Edge Application Server (notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed)).
Therefore, the prior art rejection is maintained.
2] application argues: (summary Remarks 8/6/26, pg 5-7)(emphasis added)
...
Kim-805 teaches DE-to-network signaling for Edge/Application Service (EAS) handling. Kim-805 treats the DE as a participant in service procedures rather than the entity that determines and directs application context relocation with application-specific instructions.
Samsung teaches Application Context Relocation (ACR) mechanisms and EAS involvement in an edge architecture. Samsung places control and triggering of relocation and notifications primarily within network-side functions rather than in DE-originated signaling.
Samsung locates ACR control in the network and Kim does not provide application-layer
instructions in UE signaling. Even assuming Samsung's Figure 7.x.1-1, step 2 discloses a message associated with application context relocation, Samsung does not disclose a UE determining whether the ACR is needed and then providing, to an EDN node, a request message that includes an EAS notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed, as required by claim 1. In contrast, Samsung describes an ACR framework in which relocation decisions and associated notifications are managed by network-side entities, such that any notification of the EAS results from network-controlled procedures instead of from a UE-originated request containing an application-layer instruction. As such, Samsung fails to remedy the deficiencies of Kim-805. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable over the combination of Kim-805 and Samsung.
...
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, see response to argument 1] above.
Furthermore, per the office action (non-final 5/6/26, pg 5-7), Kim-805 discloses a UE supporting edge computing system may have a built-in EEC (edge enabling client) (determining ... in an Edge Data Network, EDN) (Kim-805: [0054]).
Furthermore, per the office action (non-final 5/6/26, pg 5-7), Kim-805 discloses determining whether the ACR is needed in an Edge Data Network, EDN (Kim-805: fig 1-19, [0019-180]: fig 1 ... a UE supporting edge computing system may have a built-in EEC (edge enabling client) (determining ... in an Edge Data Network, EDN) [0054] ... availability of an EAS (edge application server) determined according to whether EAS driven in an edge data network and state of EAS (determining ... in an Edge Data Network, EDN) [0057] ... fig 2 method of determining (identifying) the necessity to perform application context relocation (see with [0054;57] above- determining whether the ACR is needed in an Edge Data Network, EDN) [0062]).
Therefore, the prior art rejection is maintained.
3] application argues: (summary Remarks 8/6/26, pg 5-7)(emphasis added)
...
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Kim-805 to arrive at the claimed features. Kim-805 does not disclose a DE determining that ACR is needed or embedding an indication that an EAS should be notified that ACR is needed, and Samsung provides no teaching or suggestion to move those functions from network entities to the DE. The Patent Office's rejection therefore relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap to combine isolated aspects of Kim-805 and Samsung into a DE-driven, application-aware ACR procedure that neither reference individually nor the references collectively teach. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable over the combination of Kim-805 and Samsung. Claims 2-4 and 7 contain similar features or depend from claims that include features similar to claim 1 and are allowable for at least the same reasons.
...
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the reasons for obviousness that have been provided by the examiner, the examiner has used the teachings of Kim-805 and Samsungs and what was known as scientific fact by those who are skilled in the art to make the rejections.
Therefore, the examiner submits that no improper hindsight has been used to make the rejections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,166,842. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because conflicting claims are in a patent by the same inventive entity. Furthermore, where claims in the instant application are broader than the claims of the ‘ 842 patent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit elements when the remaining elements perform as before. A person of ordinary skill could have arrived at the present claims by omitting the details of the ‘842 patent claims. See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decided January 16, 1963 ("Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same function as before").
Instant application
‘842 patent
Claims 1, 7 (claim 1 exemplary)
A method performed by a User Equipment, UE, for enabling Application Context Relocation, ACR, comprising:
determining whether the ACR is needed in an Edge Data Network, EDN;
providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS, notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed; and
receiving a response message from the EDN node that indicates a result of the ACR.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the ACR is needed comprises determining that a Target-Edge Application Server, T-EAS, in the EDN needs to be used for an application traffic.
Claim 4, 10 (claim 4 exemplary)
The method of claim 1, wherein the request message further comprises either one or both of:
a UE Identification, UEID; and
a T-EAS endpoint and Data Network Access Identifier, DNAI.
Claim 5, 11 (claim 5 exemplary)
The method of claim 4, wherein:
the ACR is initiated by an Application Client, AC, or an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE; and
the EAS notification flag is set to FALSE to cause the S-EES not to notify the T-EAS that the ACR is needed.
Claims 1, 2, 6 (claim 1 exemplary)
A method performed by a User Equipment, UE, for enabling Application Context Relocation, ACR, comprising:
determining whether the ACR is needed in an Edge Data Network, EDN wherein the ACR is initiated by an Application Client, AC, and an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE, by determining that a Target-Edge Application Server, T-EAS, in the EDN needs to be used for an application traffic;
providing, from the EEC and to a Source-Edge Enabler Server, S-EES, a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising: (i) an Edge Application Server, EAS, notification flag whether to notify a source EAS, S-EAS, that the ACR is needed; (ii) a UE Identification, UEID, (iii) a T-EAS endpoint, and (iv) a Data Network Access Identifier, DNAI, wherein the EAS notification flag is set to FALSE to cause the S-EES not to notify the S-EAS that the ACR is needed; and
receiving a response message from the S-EES that indicates a result of the ACR.
Claim 6, 12 (claim 6 exemplary)
The method of claim 4, wherein:
the ACR is executed by an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE; and
the EAS notification flag is set to TRUE to cause the S-EES to notify the T-EAS that the ACR is needed.
Claim 13
The method of claim 11, wherein performing the ACR comprises applying Application Function, AF, traffic influence with N6 routing information provided from the S-EES to the T-EAS in the EDN.
Claim 6
A method performed by a User Equipment, UE, for
enabling Application Context Relocation, ACR, comprising:
determining whether the ACR is needed in an Edge Data Network, EDN, wherein the ACR is executed by an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE, by determining that a Target-Edge Application Server, T-EAS, in the EDN needs to be used for an application traffic; and
provide, from the EEC and to a Source-Edge Enabler
Server, S-EES, a request message to request the ACR,
the request message comprising: (i) an Edge Application Server, EAS, notification flag whether to notify a source EAS, S-EAS that the ACR is needed, (ii) a UE Identification, UEID, (iii) a T-EAS endpoint, and (iv) a Data Network Access Identifier, DNAI, wherein the EAS notification flag is set to TRUE to cause the S-EES to notify the S-EAS that the ACR is needed; and receiving a response message from the S-EES that indicates a result of the ACR.
Claim 3, 5 (claim 3 exemplary)
A method performed by a Source-Edge Enabler Server,
S-EES, in an Edge Data Network, EDN, for enabling
Application Context Relocation, ACR, wherein the ACR is initiated by an Application Client, AC, and an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in a User Equipment, UE, the method comprising:
receiving, from the EEC, a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising: (i) an Edge
Application Server, EAS, notification flag whether to
notify a Source-Edge Application Server, S-EAS that
the ACR is needed, (ii) a UE Identification, UEID, (iii)
a Target-EAS, T-EAS, endpoint, and (iv) a Data Network Access Identifier, DNAI, wherein the EAS notification flag is set to FALSE to cause the S-EES not to notify the S-EAS that the ACR is needed;
determining whether the UE is authorized to perform the ACR;
performing the ACR in response to determining that the UE is authorized to perform the ACR, and applying Application Function, AF, traffic influence with N6 routing information of the T-EAS in a core network, CN; and
sending a response message to the EEC to indicate a result of the ACR.
Claim 4
The method of claim 3, wherein performing the ACR
further comprises providing the N6 routing information from a Target Edge Enabler Server, T-EES, to the T-EAS in the EDN.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0053805 to Kim et al. (“Kim-805”) in view of 3GPP draft “New solution for application context relocation” (Sept 2-6, 2019) [IDS 2/21/25] to Samsung et al. (“Samsung”).
As to claim 1, Kim-805 discloses a method performed by a User Equipment, UE, for enabling Application Context Relocation, ACR (Kim-805: fig 1-19), comprising:
determining whether the ACR is needed in an Edge Data Network, EDN (Kim-805: fig 1-19, [0019-180]: fig 1 ... a UE supporting edge computing system may have a built-in EEC (edge enabling client) (determining ... in an Edge Data Network, EDN) [0054] ... availability of an EAS (edge application server) determined according to whether EAS driven in an edge data network and state of EAS (determining ... in an Edge Data Network, EDN) [0057] ... fig 2 method of determining (identifying) the necessity to perform application context relocation (see with [0054;57] above- determining whether the ACR is needed in an Edge Data Network, EDN) [0062]).
Kim-805 did not explicitly disclose providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS, notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed (emphasis added).
Specifically, Kim-805 discloses providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR, notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed (Kim-805: fig 1-19, [0019-180]: fig 7 ... In step 0, the source EES may determine a relocation mode and transmit the relocation mode to the EEC and the source EAS [0165] ... step 1 the application context relocation procedure may be initiated or triggered in the EEC, source EAS and/or source EES (providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR ...) [0166] ... and receive a context relocation request from a EEC in step 2A ... source EES may determine a device EEC or source EAS to transmit the relocation in-progress indication (... notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed) [0167] [0057;114]).
Nonetheless, Kim-805 did not explicitly disclose providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS, notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed (emphasis added).
Samsung discloses providing, to an EDN node, a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS, notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed (emphasis added) (Samsung: section 7.x.1, pg 2-3: fig 7.x.1-1 step 2 Edge Enabler Client (EEC) sends the Context relocation request (... a request message to request the ACR ...) (UE info, source Edge Application Server info... (comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS), source EES info, Application ID, Edge Enabler Client Registration Context ID) (... a request message to request the ACR, the request message comprising an Edge Application Server, EAS) to the target EES (providing, to an EDN node ...) and step 3 ... target EES sends the application context relocation request (UE info, source Edge Application Server info) to the determined target Edge Application Server (notification indication for notifying an EAS that the ACR is needed)).
Kim-805 and Samsung are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to application context relocation.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Samsung into Kim-805. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a new solution for application context relocation that can be triggered even though UE is not able to communicate with a source edge application server (Samsung: section 2: Reason for change, pg 1, 3rd bullet)).
Kim-805 and Samsung further disclose receiving a response message from the EDN node that indicates a result of the ACR (Kim-805: fig 1-19, [0019-180]: fig 7 ... the target EES (EDN node) may transmit the application context relocation complete or response (receiving a response message from the EDN node that indicates a result of the ACR) to the UE in step 12B and in case that the source EES does not receive an EEC registration notification from the target EES, the source EES (EDN node) may transmit application context relocation complete or response (receiving a response message from the EDN node that indicates a result of the ACR) to the EEC in step 12A [0172]).
Same motivation applies as mentioned above to make the proposed modification.
As to claim 2, see similar rejection to claim 1 where the method is taught by the method.
As to claim 2, Kim-805 and Samsung further disclose wherein determining whether the ACR is needed comprises determining that a Target-Edge Application Server, T-EAS, in the EDN needs to be used for an application traffic (Samsung: section 7.x.1, pg 2-3: fig 7.x.1-1 step 3 target EES determines the target Edge Application Server based on the received application context relocation request from the Edge Enabler Client (determining whether the ACR is needed comprises determining that a Target-Edge Application Server, T-EAS, in the EDN needs to be used for an application traffic) and target EES sends the application context relocation request (UE info, source Edge Application Server info) to the determined target Edge Application Server).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 3, see similar rejection to claims 1-2.
As to claim 3, Kim-805 and Samsung further disclose providing the request message comprises providing the request message to a Source-Edge Enabler Server, S-EES, in the EDN (Kim-805: fig 1-19, [0019-180]: fig 7 ... application context relocation procedure is initiated or triggered in the EEC or the source EAS, source EES may receive a context relocation request from the EEC (step 2A) (providing the request message comprises providing the request message to a Source-Edge Enabler Server, S-EES, in the EDN) [0167]); and
receiving the response message comprises receiving the response message from the S-EES in the EDN (Kim-805: fig 1-19, [0019-180]: fig 7 ... the source EES may transmit application context relocation complete or response (response message) to the EEC in step 12A (receiving the response message comprises receiving the response message from the S-EES in the EDN) [0172]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 4, see similar rejection to claims 1-3.
As to claim 4, Kim-805 and Samsung further disclose wherein the request message further comprises either one or both of:
a UE Identification, UEID (Samsung: section 7.x.1, pg 2-3: fig 7.x.1-1 step 2 Edge Enabler Client sends the Context relocation request (UE info (see fig – UEId) source Edge Application Server info, source EES info, Application ID, Edge Enabler Client Registration Context ID) to the target EES); and
a T-EAS endpoint and Data Network Access Identifier, DNAI.
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, see similar rejection to claim 1 where the device is taught by the method.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0053805 to Kim et al. (“Kim-805”) in view of 3GPP draft “New solution for application context relocation” (Sept 2-6, 2019) [IDS 2/21/25] to Samsung et al. (“Samsung”) and further in view of 3GPP draft “Pseudo-CR on UE -Edge application context transfer” (May 14, 2020) [IDS 2/21/25] to Qualcomm et al. (“Qualcomm”).
As to claim 5, Kim-805 and Samsung disclose the ACR is initiated by an Application Client, AC, or an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE (Kim-805: fig 1-19, [0019-180]: fig 1 & 9 ... a UE supporting edge computing system may have a built-in EEC (edge enabling client) ( ... by an Application Client, AC, or an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE) [0054] ... the source EES may receive a context relocation request from the EEC (step 2A) (see with [0054] above - ACR is initiated by an Application Client, AC, or an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE) [0167];
Samsung: section 7.x.1, pg 2-3: fig 7.x.1-1 step 2 Edge Enabler Client (EEC) sends the Context relocation request (see with Kim-805 [0054] above - the ACR is initiated by an Application Client, AC, or an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE) (UE info, source Edge Application Server info, source EES info, Application ID, Edge Enabler Client Registration Context ID) to the target EES).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
Kim-805 did not explicitly disclose he EAS notification flag is set to FALSE to cause the S-EES not to notify the T-EAS that the ACR is needed.
Qualcomm discloses the EAS notification flag is set to FALSE to cause the S-EES not to notify the T-EAS that the ACR is needed (Qualcomm: section 8.8.3.bb, pg 5-6: note under item 1.2.1 .2 and section 8.8.3.bb, Note 1 : by providing sufficient information (EAS notification flag is set to FALSE) in the ARC request to the T-EES about the T-EAS, the steps 5-6 can be skipped (the S-EES not to notify the T-EAS that the ACR is needed) and step 5 incudes target Edge Enabler Server sends the application context relocation request (source Application Client information, UE information) to the target Edge Application Server for application context relocation (i.e. step 5 is skipped based on the sufficient information acting as a flag and thus the S-EES not to notify the T-EAS that the ACR is needed)).
Kim-805, Samsung and Qualcomm are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to edge computing systems.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Qualcomm into the method by Kim-805 and Samsung. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a UE information in an application context relocation procedure (Qualcomm: section 8.8.3.bb, pg 5-6).
As to claim 6, see similar rejection to claims 1 and 5 where the method is taught by the method.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0053805 to Kim et al. (“Kim-805”) in view of 3GPP draft “New solution for application context relocation” (Sept 2-6, 2019) [IDS 2/21/25] to Samsung et al. (“Samsung”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0121672 to Ge et al. (“Ge”).
As to claim 8, see similar rejection to claim 1 where the device is taught by the method.
Kim-805 did not explicitly disclose determining whether the UE is authorized to perform the ACR; performing the ACR in response to determining that the UE is authorized to perform the ACR.
Ge discloses determining whether the UE is authorized to perform the ACR (Ge: fig 1-23, [0133-597]: fig 1 UE includes an edge enabler client (EEC) and an application client (AC) [0168] ... EEC is a peer entity of an EES at the UE and EEC is configured to: register information about the EEC and information about an application client with the EES, perform security authentication and authorization (... whether the UE is authorized ...) [0170] fig 2-4 ... step 202 EEC performs a service provisioning procedure to discover T-EES and step 202 in detail with reference to (a) (b) (c) in fig 3 [0245-246;248] ... a registration procedure of the EEC in detail with reference to (b) in fig 3 and a registration procedure of the EAS in detail with reference to (c) in fig 3 [0248] ... (b) in fig 3 is a schematic diagram of an EEC registration procedure [0271] ... step 301b: The EEC sends an EEC registration request message to the EES [0273] ... for example table 1B shows information elements that may be included in EEC registration request message ... EEC ID, UE identifier, security credential (described as generated when an edge computing service is successfully authorized- i.e. such as ACR), AC profile, proposal expiration timer, source EES ID, address of source EES endpoint [0275] ... step 302b: after receiving the request from the EEC, the EES verifies the registration request and the security credential [0276] ... step 304b: EES sends registration response message to EEC [0279] ... if registration succeeds, the EES sends a registration success response includes a registration ID, and may include a newly assigned EEC context ID (see with [0170; 273;275;276] above - determining whether the UE is authorized to perform the ACR) and EEC stores the new EEC context ID, and uses the new EEC context ID when registering with another EES [0280]);
performing the ACR in response to determining that the UE is authorized to perform the ACR (Ge: fig 1-23, [0133-597]: fig 2-4 ... step 202 EEC performs a service provisioning procedure to discover T-EES and step 202 in detail with reference to (a) (b) (c) in fig 3 (see with [0170; 273;275;276;280] above - determining whether the UE is authorized to perform the ACR) [0245-246;248] ... step 205 application context relocation request message (performing the ACR in response to determining that the UE is authorized to perform the ACR)).
Kim-805, Samsung and Ge are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to edge computing systems.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Ge into the method by Kim-805 and Samsung. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide an EES to verify registration requests and security credentials (Ge: [0276]).
As to claim 9, Kim-805, Samsung and Ge disclose wherein the EDN node is a Source-Edge Enabler Server, S-EES, in the EDN (Kim-805: fig 1-19, [0019-180]: see fig 3-8, 11-12, 14-15 & 17 source EES (S-EES)).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 4.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0053805 to Kim et al. (“Kim-805”) in view of 3GPP draft “New solution for application context relocation” (Sept 2-6, 2019) [IDS 2/21/25] to Samsung et al. (“Samsung”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0121672 to Ge et al. (“Ge”) and further in view of 3GPP draft “Pseudo-CR on UE -Edge application context transfer” (May 14, 2020) [IDS 2/21/25] to Qualcomm et al. (“Qualcomm”).
As to claim 11, Kim-805, Samsung and Ge disclose the ACR is initiated by an Application Client, AC, or an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE (Kim-805: fig 1-19, [0019-180]: fig 1 & 9 ... a UE supporting edge computing system may have a built-in EEC (edge enabling client) ( ... by an Application Client, AC, or an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE) [0054] ... the source EES may receive a context relocation request from the EEC (step 2A) (see with [0054] above - ACR is initiated by an Application Client, AC, or an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE) [0167];
Samsung: section 7.x.1, pg 2-3: fig 7.x.1-1 step 2 Edge Enabler Client (EEC) sends the Context relocation request (see with Kim-805 [0054] above - the ACR is initiated by an Application Client, AC, or an Edge Enabler Client, EEC, in the UE) (UE info, source Edge Application Server info, source EES info, Application ID, Edge Enabler Client Registration Context ID) to the target EES).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 8.
Kim-805 did not explicitly disclose he EAS notification flag is set to FALSE to cause the S-EES not to notify the T-EAS that the ACR is needed.
Qualcomm discloses the EAS notification flag is set to FALSE to cause the S-EES not to notify a Target-Edge Application Server, T-EAS, in the EDN that the ACR need to be performed in the EDN (Qualcomm: section 8.8.3.bb, pg 5-6: note under item 1.2.1 .2 and section 8.8.3.bb, Note 1 : by providing sufficient information (EAS notification flag is set to FALSE) in the ARC request to the T-EES about the T-EAS, the steps 5-6 can be skipped (the S-EES not to notify the T-EAS, in the EDN that the ACR need to be performed in the EDN) and step 5 incudes target Edge Enabler Server sends the application context relocation request (source Application Client information, UE information) to the target Edge Application Server for application context relocation (i.e. step 5 is skipped based on the sufficient information acting as a flag and thus the S-EES not to notify the T-EAS that the ACR is needed)).
Kim-805, Samsung, Ge and Qualcomm are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to edge computing systems.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Qualcomm into the method by Kim-805, Samsung and Ge. The suggestion/ motivation would have been to provide an EES to verify registration requests and security credentials (Ge: [0276]) and provide UE information in an application context relocation procedure (Qualcomm: section 8.8.3.bb, pg 5-6).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claims 8 and 11 where the device is taught by the device.
As to claim 13, Kim-805, Samsung, Ge and Qualcomm disclose wherein performing the ACR comprises applying Application Function, AF, traffic influence with N6 routing information provided from the S-EES to the T-EAS in the EDN (Ge: fig 1-23, [0133-597]: ... terminal may be notified of related information of the target EAS, and the EAS (which may be the source EAS and the target EAS) (T-EAS) may be notified to initiate application context transmission (wherein performing the ACR comprises ... to the T-EAS in the EDN) and the EES (S-EES or T-EES) or the EAS performs application function (AF) traffic influence and carries N6 routing information of the T-EAS (wherein performing the ACR comprises applying Application Function, AF, traffic influence with N6 routing information provided from the S-EES or T-EES to the T-EAS in the EDN) [0234] ... for example, the ACR method in this embodiment of this application may include at least one of : initiation by EEC using regular EAS discovery (the manner shown in FIG. 2), EEC executed ACR via S-EES (the manner shown in FIG. 5) (wherein performing the ACR comprises ... provided from the S-EES or T-EES to the T-EAS in the EDN), S-EAS decided ACR scenario, S-EES executed ACR (the manner shown in FIG. 7), EEC executed ACR via T-EES (the manner shown in FIG. 6), automated ACR (which may also be referred to as full ACR/EES management, or ACR/EEL layer management ACR/ automated ACR) (the manner shown in FIG. 9), or the like [0404-405] ... the correspondence includes a correspondence between an ACR trigger event and a functional entity (at least including the functional entities such as the AC, the EAS, the EES, and the EEC mentioned above) that executes ACR, and/or a correspondence between the application type and the functional entity that executes ACR [0410]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 11.
As to claim 14, Kim-805, Samsung, Ge and Qualcomm disclose wherein the EDN node is a Target-Edge Enabler Server, T-EES, in the EDN (Ge: fig 1-23, [0133-597]: ... terminal may be notified of related information of the target EAS, and the EAS (which may be the source EAS and the target EAS) (T-EAS) may be notified to initiate application context transmission (wherein performing the ACR comprises ... to the T-EAS in the EDN) and the EES (S-EES or T-EES) or the EAS performs application function (AF) traffic influence and carries N6 routing information of the T-EAS (wherein performing the ACR comprises applying Application Function, AF, traffic influence with N6 routing information provided from the S-EES or T-EES to the T-EAS in the EDN) [0234] ... for example, the ACR method in this embodiment of this application may include at least one of : initiation by EEC using regular EAS discovery (the manner shown in FIG. 2), EEC executed ACR via S-EES (the manner shown in FIG. 5) (wherein performing the ACR comprises ... provided from the S-EES or T-EES to the T-EAS in the EDN), S-EAS decided ACR scenario, S-EES executed ACR (the manner shown in FIG. 7), EEC executed ACR via T-EES (the manner shown in FIG. 6), automated ACR (which may also be referred to as full ACR/EES management, or ACR/EEL layer management ACR/ automated ACR) (the manner shown in FIG. 9), or the like [0404-405] ... the correspondence includes a correspondence between an ACR trigger event and a functional entity (at least including the functional entities such as the AC, the EAS, the EES, and the EEC mentioned above) that executes ACR, and/or a correspondence between the application type and the functional entity that executes ACR [0410]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 11.
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claims 13-14.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A) US 20260254747 - Cirimelli-Low
A system is provided which includes a first communications network including first nodes and a second communications network including a group of second nodes. Each of the first nodes is configured to transmit a multi-destination packet to two or more second nodes among the group of second nodes based on numerical identifiers which respectively correspond to the second nodes and are different from one another and a composite number corresponding to the group of second nodes. The composite number is a product of the numerical identifiers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUNE SISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5693. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/JUNE SISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights