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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 15 and all the dependent claims and more specifically claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, “first device” is not defined in the specification. Paragraph [0008] cites “ based on this, the first device routes, based on the identifier…. “ without clearly citing if this is an access router, base station or any kind of gateway etc. For the purpose of examination, “first device” has been considered to be any device/terminal/UE/station capable of performing core network function that sits in the 5G core.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite. Claim 2 recites “receiving a first message”, whereas claim 1 recites “generating a first request message.” It is unclear whether the “first message” is the same message as the “first request message” or is a different message. If the former, the claims fail to use the consistent terminology; if the later, the source and relationship of the first message are unclear.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite. Claim 5 recites, “the third request message comprises a first identifier” but claim 1 does not previously introduce a “first identifier”. Claim 1 only recites a “second identifier.” Thus, it is unclear what is meant by the “first identifier” and what relationship the first identifier has to the second identifier.
Regarding Claim 6, cited “first device” and “second device” are not defined in the specification. FIG. 4 (S402 and S403) do no clearly cite if they are access routers, base stations or any kind of gateways etc. For the purpose of examination, “first device” has been considered to be any device/terminal/UE/station capable of performing core network function that sits in the 5G core.
Regarding Claim 15, the recited “first device” is not defined in the specification. FIG. 4 (S402) does not clearly cite if it is an access router, base station or any kind of gateway etc. For the purpose of examination, “first device” has been considered to be any device/terminal/UE/station capable of performing core network function that sits in the 5G core.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20260197748 A1, hereinafter Liu) in view of Kunz et al. (US 20230403640 A1, hereinafter Kunz)
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches a method generating a first request message
(Liu [0005] According to a first aspect of the embodiments of the present disclosure, there is provided a communication method, performed by a terminal device, and including: transmitting a first request message.)
wherein the first request message comprises a second identifier
(Liu [0064] The device identifier may be relevant information for identifying the device, which includes but not limited to device ID or another identifier or the like, which is not limited herein.)
(Note: These steps constitute "first request message comprises a second identifier" where “first request message” in the claim is considered to be the “first identifier” hereinafter and applicable with different device due to the ambiguity in the limitations explained in 112(b). Combination of the first identifier along with Device ID or like is considered to be “second identifier”)
sending the first request message to a first device.
(Liu [FIG. 4, S41] transmit a first request message.)
(Note: In the reference the “AMF” reads on to the “first device” in the claim limitation. Due to the ambiguity in the claim language as described in the 112(b), first device can be AMF or any kind of device of the like)
But Liu fails to teach
the second identifier identifies that access of a terminal device to a target server is continuous access,
and the target server is a server that processes the first request message;
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches the second identifier identifies that access of a terminal device to a target server is continuous access
(Kunz [FIG. 7] describes a continuous access between the UE 702 to application server EAS 714.)
the target server is a server that processes the first request message;
(Kunz [0048] In various embodiments, for some MEC services, an EEC in a UE may authenticate with an MEC platform (e.g., ECS, EES, and/or EAS.)
(Note: ECS (Edge application server) in the reference reads onto the “a target server” of the claim limitation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have prevented a break in the application data flow while the terminal is mobile.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Liu and Kunz teach the method of Claim 1 and Liu further teaches receiving a first message
(Liu [0006, line 4] receiving a first request message from a terminal device, where the first request message is configured to query for service information of a PIN.)
(Note: PIN in the reference is the Personal IoT network and in In some architectures, a PIN can be assigned a unique network ID (e.g., a network slice ID, private network ID, or logical network address) that distinguishes it from other PINs. The PIN ID can be used to manage all devices within that network, making it a convenient “umbrella” identifier for the user’s IoT ecosystem.)
determining the second identifier based on an identifier of the terminal device and the first message;
(Liu [0145 and FIG. 4, S42] At step S42, it is determined whether the PINE-1 subscribes to the services of the first PIN and whether the PINE-1 has an authority to use the services of the first PIN.)
But Liu does not teach wherein the first message indicates that an application identified by a first identifier is a continuously accessed application;
sending a second request message to the first device, wherein the second request message comprises the first identifier and the second identifier.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches wherein the first message indicates that an application identified by a first identifier is a continuously accessed application;
(Kunz [0088] In a fifth communication 730 transmitted from the UE 702 to the ECS 710, the UE 702 sends an application registration request with a MAC-I.sub.ECS and a GPSI to the ECS 710.)
sending a second request message to the first device, wherein the second request message comprises the first identifier and the second identifier
(Kunz [0086 and FIG. 7] In a fourth communication 724 transmitted between the UE 702 and the AMF 704, the UE 702 establishes a PDU session for IP connectivity with the AMF 704.)
(Note: IP connectivity consists of necessary identifiers that reads onto the claim limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have utilized a key marker that distinguishes traffic needing affinity preservation.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Liu and Kunz teach the method of claim 1 and Liu further teaches wherein the method is applied to a terminal device or a chip in the terminal device.
(Liu [0203, line and FIG. 8] When the processor 8001 serves as a terminal device, the processor 8001 is used to execute the application program code 8005 stored in the memory 8003 to implement the communication method applicable to the terminal device in any of the embodiments of the present disclosure.)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Liu and Kunz teach the method of claim 1, but Liu fails to teach sending a third request message to the first device, wherein the third request message comprises a first identifier,
and the first identifier identifies a type of an application that the terminal device requests to access.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches sending a third request message to the first device,
(Liu [FIG. 4, S41] transmit a first request message.)
(Note: In the reference the “AMF” reads on to the “first device” in the claim limitation. Due to the ambiguity in the claim language as described in the 112(b), first device can be AMF or any kind of device of the like.
The method of sending the “third request message” to the “first device” in the claim language is considered to be the same as transmitting the first request message to the AMF in the disclosed FIG. 4 of the reference. )
wherein the third request message comprises a first identifier
(Kunz [0087] If the UE 702 is MEC capable, then the UE 702 derives 726 a key K.sub.ECS for authentication with the ECS 710.)
and the first identifier identifies a type of an application that the terminal device requests to access.
(Kunz [0088] In a fifth communication 730 transmitted from the UE 702 to the ECS 710, the UE 702 sends an application registration request with a MAC-I.sub.ECS and a GPSI to the ECS 710.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have allowed routers repeated requests from the same terminal confirming the continuity of the unbroken application during the mobility of the terminal.
Regarding Claim 6, Liu teaches the method receiving, by a first device, a first request message from a terminal device, wherein the first request message comprises a second identifier
(Liu [0006, lines 4] receiving a first request message from a terminal device, where the first request message is configured to query for service information of a PIN.)
(Note: These steps constitute "first request message comprises a second identifier" where “first request message” in the claim is considered to be the “first identifier” hereinafter and applicable with different device due to the ambiguity in the limitations explained in 112(b). Combination of the first identifier along with Device ID or like is considered to be “second identifier”)
sending, by the first device, the first request message to a second device
(Liu [FIG. 4, S44] transmit a second request message from the first device AMF to the second device PMF.)
(Note: second request message in the reference reads onto the "first request message" of the claim language. PMF of the referenced FIG. 4 reads onto the “second device” of the claim language.)
based on the second identifier and a third mapping relationship, wherein the third mapping relationship indicates a correspondence between the second identifier and the second device.
(Liu [0145 and FIG. 4, S42] it is determined whether the PINE-1 subscribes to the services of the first PIN and whether the PINE-1 has an authority to use the services of the first PIN.)
But Liu fails to teach the second identifier identifies that access of the terminal device to a target server is continuous access, and the target server is a server that processes the first request message
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches the second identifier identifies that access of the terminal device to a target server is continuous access
(Kunz [0086] In a fourth communication 724 transmitted between the UE 702 and the AMF 704, the UE 702 establishes a PDU session for IP connectivity with the AMF 704.)
and the target server is a server that processes the first request message
(Kunz [0087] If the UE 702 is MEC capable, then the UE 702 derives 726 a key K.sub.ECS for authentication with the ECS 710.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have the second identifier as the key marker for continuous access to the server. This confirms affinity preservation.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Liu and Kunz teach the method of claim 6 but Liu fails to teach receiving, by the first device, a second request message from the terminal device, wherein the second request message comprises a first identifier and the second identifier, and the first identifier identifies a type of an application that the terminal device requests to access; determining, by the first device, the second device based on the first identifier, computing power information, and network information; and sending, by the first device, the second request message to the second device.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches
receiving, by the first device, a second request message from the terminal device,
(Kunz [0086] In a fourth communication 724 transmitted between the UE 702 and the AMF 704, the UE 702 establishes a PDU session for IP connectivity with the AMF 704.)
wherein the second request message comprises a first identifier and the second identifier,
(Kunz [0087] If the UE 702 is MEC capable, then the UE 702 derives 726 a key K.sub.ECS for authentication with the ECS 710 from the AMF 704 key K.sub.AMF and the AMF 704 derives 728 a key K.sub.ECS for authentication with the ECS 710 from the AMF 704 key K.sub.AMF.)
and the first identifier identifies a type of an application that the terminal device requests to access;
(Kunz [0088] In a fifth communication 730 transmitted from the UE 702 to the ECS 710, the UE 702 sends an application registration request with a MAC-I.sub.ECS and a GPSI to the ECS 710.)
determining, by the first device, the second device based on the first identifier, computing power information, and network information;
(Kunz [0058, line 2] The NEF 404 stores contact information corresponding to the ECS 406 (e.g., IP address, source NAI of the ECS 406, and so forth) with the UE ID to facilitate routing an answer from the AMF 404 back to the ECS 406.)
(Note: FIG. 4 describes the relationship between the first and second device)
[0018] Modules may also be implemented in code and/or software for execution by various types of processors.
(Note: Various types of processors possess computing power information)
and sending, by the first device, the second request message to the second device.
(Kunz [0093] In an eighth communication 740 transmitted from the AMF 704 to the NEF 708
(FIG. 4, 408])
(Note: NEF 708 in the referenced FIG is considered to be the “second device” of the claim limitation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have the second identifier as the key marker for continuous access to the server. This confirms affinity preservation.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Liu and Kunz teach method of Claim 6 but Liu fails to teach the third mapping relationship is from a session management function serving the terminal device;
or the third mapping relationship is from a third device, and the third device is a device to which the terminal device is connected when the terminal device accesses the target server last time.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches the third mapping relationship is from a session management function serving the terminal device;
(Kunz [0055] The NEF 404 stores 410 a binding (e.g., a mapping, information indicating a correlation) of the two identifiers (e.g., UE ID, AMF ID) to facilitate responding to future queries (e.g., from the ECS 406).
[0071 and FIG. 6] In a third embodiment, there may be identifier binding in an SMF. Moreover, in the third embodiment, an IP address of a UE may be used in a request from an ECS and the SMF may have a binding of the IP Address and other identifiers (e.g., UE ID and AMF ID).
[0073] In the SMF 604 (e.g., in a first step 610), the UE IP address may be provided to the SMF 604 (e.g., during a PDU session setup procedure)).
or the third mapping relationship is from a third device, and the third device is a device to which the terminal device is connected when the terminal device accesses the target server last time.
(Note: Claim language requires examiner to find at least one limitation. Examiner has elaborated one and that is considered to be sufficient.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have preserved node selection across repeated requests.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Liu and Kunz teach method of Claim 6 but Liu fails to teach receiving, by the second device, the first request message from the first device; and sending, by the second device, the first request message to the target server based on the second identifier and a second mapping relationship, wherein the second mapping relationship indicates a correspondence between the second identifier and the target server.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches receiving, by the second device, the first request message from the first device;
(Kunz [0053, line 5 and FIG. 4] The communications 400 include messages transmitted between an AMF 402, an NEF 404, and an ECS 406. As may be appreciated, each communication of the communications 400 may include one or more messages.)
(Note: NEF is the in the reference is considered to be the “second device” in the claim limitation.)
sending, by the second device, the first request message to the target server based on the second identifier and a second mapping relationship
(Kunz [0054] In a first communication 408 transmitted from the AMF 402 to the NEF 404, the AMF 402 sends a registration message (e.g., registration request) to the NEF 404. The registration message may include a UE ID and it's AMF ID.)
(Kunz [0093, line 2] in a ninth communication 742 transmitted from the NEF 708 to the ECS 710.)
wherein the second mapping relationship indicates a correspondence between the second identifier and the target server.
(Kunz [0093, line 4] the AMF 704 sends a key response to the ECS 710 including the result of the authentication as well as the K.sub.ECS.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have second identifier to recognize continuous-access traffic and preserves node selection.
Regarding Claim 10 and as applied to Claim 9, but Liu fails to teach receiving, by the second device, a fourth request message from the first device
determining, by the second device, the target server based on the first identifier, computing power information, and network information;
sending, by the second device, the fourth request message to the target server.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches
receiving, by the second device, a fourth request message from the first device
(Kunz [0055] The NEF 404 stores 410 a binding (e.g., a mapping, information indicating a correlation) of the two identifiers (e.g., UE ID, AMF ID) to facilitate responding to future queries (e.g., from the ECS 406). The NEF 404 may subscribe to updates from the AMF 402 (e.g., if the AMF 402 changes, such as due to mobility))
(Note: in FIG 4. AMF and NEF reads onto the “first” and “second” devices of the claim limitation and Fourth request message follows the same procedure of message transfer like the Second Request message.)
wherein the fourth request message comprises a first identifier and the second identifier,
(Kunz [0087] If the UE 702 is MEC capable, then the UE 702 derives 726 a key K.sub.ECS for authentication with the ECS 710 from the AMF 704 key K.sub.AMF and the AMF 704 derives 728 a key K.sub.ECS for authentication with the ECS 710 from the AMF 704 key K.sub.AMF.)
and the first identifier identifies a type of an application that the terminal device requests to access;
(Kunz [0088] In a fifth communication 730 transmitted from the UE 702 to the ECS 710, the UE 702 sends an application registration request with a MAC-I.sub.ECS and a GPSI to the ECS 710.)
determining, by the second device, the target server based on the first identifier, computing power information, and network information;
(Kunz [0058, line 2] The NEF 404 stores contact information corresponding to the ECS 406 (e.g., IP address, source NAI of the ECS 406, and so forth) with the UE ID to facilitate routing an answer from the AMF 404 back to the ECS 406.)
[0018] Modules may also be implemented in code and/or software for execution by various types of processors.)
(Note: Various types of processors possess computing power information)
sending, by the second device, the fourth request message to the target server.
(Kunz [0088] In a fifth communication 730 transmitted from the UE 702 to the ECS 710, the UE 702 sends an application registration request with a MAC-I.sub.ECS and a GPSI to the ECS 710.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have preserved node selection across repeated requests.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Liu and Kunz teach method of Claim 6 and Liu further teaches receiving, by the first device, a third request message from the terminal device
(Liu [0074] In the communication method applied to the AMF network element according to the present disclosure, as an example, receiving the first request message from the terminal device may include receiving the first request message from the terminal device via a base station.)
(Note: In the reference the “AMF” reads on to the “first device” in the claim limitation. Due to the ambiguity in the claim language as described in the 112(b), first device can be AMF or any kind of device of the like.)
But Liu fails to teach wherein the third request message comprises a first identifier
and the first identifier identifies a type of an application that the terminal device requests to access;
determining the second identifier based on the first identifier
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches wherein the third request message comprises a first identifier
(Kunz [0087] If the UE 702 is MEC capable, then the UE 702 derives 726 a key K.sub.ECS for authentication with the ECS 710.)
(Note: The method of “third request message” comprises “first identifier” in the claim language is considered to be the using the same identifier while sending the first request message.)
and the first identifier identifies a type of an application that the terminal device requests to access;
(Kunz [0088] In a fifth communication 730 transmitted from the UE 702 to the ECS 710, the UE 702 sends an application registration request with a MAC-I.sub.ECS and a GPSI to the ECS 710.)
determining the second identifier based on the first identifier
(Kunz [0055] The NEF 404 stores 410 a binding (e.g., a mapping, information indicating a correlation) of the two identifiers (e.g., UE ID, AMF ID) to facilitate responding to future queries (e.g., from the ECS 406).
[0093] In an eighth communication 740 transmitted from the AMF 704 to the NEF 708
[FIG. 4, 408, 410])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled downstream nodes to recognize continuous-access traffic and preserved server affinity after forwarding.
Regarding Claim 12 and as applied to Claim 11, Liu fails to teach determining the second identifier based on the first identifier, computing power information, and network information; and sending a fourth request message to the second device, wherein the fourth request message comprises the second identifier.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches determining the second identifier based on the first identifier
(Kunz [0055] The NEF 404 stores 410 a binding (e.g., a mapping, information indicating a correlation) of the two identifiers (e.g., UE ID, AMF ID) to facilitate responding to future queries (e.g., from the ECS 406).
[0093] In an eighth communication 740 transmitted from the AMF 704 to the NEF 708
[FIG. 4, 408, 410])
computing power information, and network information;
(Kunz [0058, line 2] The NEF 404 stores contact information corresponding to the ECS 406 (e.g., IP address, source NAI of the ECS 406, and so forth) with the UE ID to facilitate routing an answer from the AMF 404 back to the ECS 406.)
[0018] Modules may also be implemented in code and/or software for execution by various types of processors.)
(Note: Various types of processors possess computing power information)
and sending a fourth request message to the second device, wherein the fourth request message comprises the second identifier.
(Kunz [0093] In an eighth communication 740 transmitted from the AMF 704 to the NEF 708.)
(FIG. 4, 408])
(Note: Fourth request message in the claim limitation follows the same method as is done by second request message from the first device to the second comprising the second identifier.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have routed repeated requests from the same terminal to the same second device, distinguished traffic needing affinity preservation and kept request flow bound to the same server.
Regarding Claim 13 and as applied to Claim 11, Liu fails to teach wherein the first preconfiguration information indicates a correspondence between a continuously accessed application and a type of the application;
or determining the second identifier based on the first identifier, an identifier of the terminal device, and second preconfiguration information, wherein the second preconfiguration information indicates a correspondence between a continuously accessed application, a type of the application, and the terminal device.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches wherein the first preconfiguration information indicates a correspondence between a continuously accessed application and a type of the application;
(Kunz [0057, lines 9] The request message may be routed to the AMF 402, but the ECS 406 only knows the NEF 404 (e.g., based on pre-configuration or based on a part of the UE ID for routing—such as a realm pointing to the NEF 404))
or determining the second identifier based on the first identifier, an identifier of the terminal device, and second preconfiguration information, wherein the second preconfiguration information indicates a correspondence between a continuously accessed application, a type of the application, and the terminal device.
(Note: Claim language requires examiner to find at least one limitation. Examiner has elaborated one and that is considered to be sufficient.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have kept the requests for the same application flowing to the same server.
Regarding Claim 15, Liu teaches an apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is coupled to the at least one processor and stores instructions for execution by the at least one processor
(Liu [0008] According to a fourth aspect of the embodiments of the present disclosure, there is provided a terminal device, including: a processor; and a memory storing computer programs executable by the processor, where the computer programs; when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the communication method of the first aspect.)
generate a first request message
(Liu [0005] According to a first aspect of the embodiments of the present disclosure, there is provided a communication method, performed by a terminal device, and including: transmitting a first request message.)
wherein the first request message comprises a second identifier
(Liu [0064] The device identifier may be relevant information for identifying the device, which includes but not limited to device ID or another identifier or the like, which is not limited herein.)
(Note: These steps constitute "first request message comprises a second identifier" where “first request message” in the claim is considered to be the “first identifier” hereinafter and applicable with different device due to the ambiguity in the limitations explained in 112(b). Combination of the first identifier along with Device ID or like is considered to be “second identifier”)
send the first request message to a first device.
(Liu [FIG. 4, S41] transmit a first request message.)
(Note: In the reference the “AMF” reads on to the “first device” in the claim limitation. Due to the ambiguity in the claim language as described in the 112(b), first device can be AMF or any kind of device of the like)
But Liu fails to teach
the second identifier identifies that access of a terminal device to a target server is continuous access,
and the target server is a server that processes the first request message;
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches the second identifier identifies that access of a terminal device to a target server is continuous access
(Kunz [FIG. 7 describes a continuous access between the UE 702 to application server EAS 714.)
(Note: ECS (Edge application server) in the reference reads onto the “a target server” of the claim limitation.)
the target server is a server that processes the first request message;
(Kunz [0048] In various embodiments, for some MEC services, an EEC in a UE may authenticate with an MEC platform (e.g., ECS, EES, and/or EAS.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have prevented a break in the application data flow while the terminal is mobile.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Liu and Kunz teach the apparatus according to Claim 15 receive a first message
(Liu [0006, line 4] receiving a first request message from a terminal device, where the first request message is configured to query for service information of a PIN.)
(Note: PIN in the reference is the Personal IoT network and in In some architectures, a PIN can be assigned a unique network ID (e.g., a network slice ID, private network ID, or logical network address) that distinguishes it from other PINs. The PIN ID can be used to manage all devices within that network, making it a convenient “umbrella” identifier for the user’s IoT ecosystem.)
determine the second identifier based on an identifier of the terminal device and the first message;
(Liu [0145 and FIG. 4, S42] At step S42, it is determined whether the PINE-1 subscribes to the services of the first PIN and whether the PINE-1 has an authority to use the services of the first PIN.)
But Liu does not teach wherein the first message indicates that an application identified by a first identifier is a continuously accessed application;
send a second request message to the first device, wherein the second request message comprises the first identifier and the second identifier.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches wherein the first message indicates that an application identified by a first identifier is a continuously accessed application;
(Kunz [0088] In a fifth communication 730 transmitted from the UE 702 to the ECS 710, the UE 702 sends an application registration request with a MAC-I.sub.ECS and a GPSI to the ECS 710.)
send a second request message to the first device, wherein the second request message comprises the first identifier and the second identifier
(Kunz [0086 and FIG. 7] In a fourth communication 724 transmitted between the UE 702 and the AMF 704, the UE 702 establishes a PDU session for IP connectivity with the AMF 704.)
(Note: IP connectivity consists of necessary identifiers that reads onto the claim limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have utilized a key marker that distinguishes traffic needing affinity preservation.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Liu and Kunz teach the apparatus according to Claim 15 and Liu further teaches wherein the apparatus is a terminal device or a chip in the terminal device.
(Liu [0203, line and FIG. 8] When the processor 8001 serves as a terminal device, the processor 8001 is used to execute the application program code 8005 stored in the memory 8003 to implement the communication method applicable to the terminal device in any of the embodiments of the present disclosure.)
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Liu and Kunz teach the apparatus of Claim 15, but Liu fails to teach before sending a third request message to the first device, wherein the third request message comprises a first identifier,
and the first identifier identifies a type of an application that the terminal device requests to access.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches before sending a third request message to the first device, wherein the third request message comprises a first identifier
(Kunz [0087] If the UE 702 is MEC capable, then the UE 702 derives 726 a key K.sub.ECS for authentication with the ECS 710.)
and the first identifier identifies a type of an application that the terminal device requests to access.
(Kunz [0088] In a fifth communication 730 transmitted from the UE 702 to the ECS 710, the UE 702 sends an application registration request with a MAC-I.sub.ECS and a GPSI to the ECS 710.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have allowed routers repeated requests from the same terminal confirming the continuity of the unbroken application during the mobility of the terminal.
Regarding Claim 20 and as applied to claim 16, Liu fails to teach wherein the identifier of the terminal device comprises one of the following: a media access control (MAC) address of the terminal device, an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) of the terminal device, a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) of the terminal device, or an identifier of a protocol data unit (PDU) session used by the terminal device to access the target server.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kunz teaches
(Kunz [0088] In a fifth communication 730 transmitted from the UE 702 to the ECS 710, the UE 702 sends an application registration request with a MAC-I.sub.ECS and a GPSI to the ECS 710.)
(Note: Claim language requires Examiner to identify at least one limitation in the reference. Examiner has elaborated one and that is considered to be sufficient.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu and by incorporating Kunz to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the terminal device to have a MAC address.
Claims 3, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20260197748 A1, hereinafter Liu) in view of Kunz et al. (US 20230403640 A1, hereinafter Kunz) and in further view of LIU et al. (US 20220408301 A1, hereinafter LIU)
Regarding Claim 3 and as applied to Claim 2, the combination of Liu and Kunz fail to teach wherein the first identifier comprises a service identifier
However, in a similar endeavor, LIU teaches wherein the first identifier comprises a service identifier
(LIU [0006, line 6] receiving a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment request from a user equipment (UE), in which the PDU session establishment request includes a multimodal service identifier;)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu in view of Kunz and by further incorporating LIU to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the first identifier comprising service identifier so that the devices can display available networks.
Regarding Claim 14, and as applied to Claim 13, the combination of Liu and Kunz fail to teach wherein the first identifier comprises service identifier
However, in a similar endeavor, LIU teaches wherein the first identifier comprises a service identifier
(LIU [0006, line 6] receiving a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment request from a user equipment (UE), in which the PDU session establishment request includes a multimodal service identifier;)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu in view of Kunz and by further incorporating LIU to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the first identifier comprising service identifier so that the devices can display available networks.
Regarding Claim 17, and as applied to Claim 16, the combination of Liu and Kunz fail to teach wherein the first identifier comprises service identifier
However, in a similar endeavor, LIU teaches wherein the first identifier comprises a service identifier
(LIU [0006, line 6] receiving a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment request from a user equipment (UE), in which the PDU session establishment request includes a multimodal service identifier;)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the examined application to have modified Liu in view of Kunz and by further incorporating LIU to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the first identifier comprising service identifier so that the devices can display available networks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANA HASSAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-8939. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/RANA H MAHMUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights