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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is a response to an application filed on 03/05/2025, wherein claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 03/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10 and 16 recite the limitation “receiving a request from user equipment that includes a tokens …” but presumably should read “receiving a request from user equipment that includes tokens ...”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3, 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2017/0155734), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Muschett et al. (US 2025/0258847), hereinafter Muschett.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a request from user equipment for processing by compute functionality hosted by a compute environment (Zhang, [0063]-[0064]: receiving content request message from a user terminal requesting content from the Internet (compute environment); [The Internet hosted functionality that processes the request is the “compute functionality”]);
evaluating a network edge cache hosted at a network edge compute node of a network to determine whether edge cache entries and cached responses are similar to a representation (Zhang, [0068]-[0070]: edge cache apparatus (network edge cache) searches its local cache of content identifiers (i.e., in cache entries) and corresponding content (cached responses) to determine if any are similar to content identifier in the request message);
in response to identifying an edge cache entry, providing the user equipment with a cached response of the edge cache entry (Zhang, [0072], [0074]: if the edge cache apparatus stores the content (cached response) corresponding to the content identifier (i.e., of an edge cache entry), it sends the content (cached response) to the user terminal);
in response to not identifying at least one edge cache entry, routing the request to a network core cache of the network (Zhang, [0063]: if the edge cache apparatus does not store the content requested by the request message (i.e., edge cache entry not identified), it forwards the request message to the core cache apparatus (network core cache)); and
in response to identifying a core cache entry, providing a cached response of the core cache entry to the network edge cache to store as a new edge cache entry and to provide to the user equipment (Zhang, [0078], [0064]: if the core cache apparatus stores the content (cached response) corresponding to the content identifier (i.e., of the core cache entry), it sends the content (cached response) to the edge cache apparatus (network edge cache) which stores the content (i.e., as a new edge cache entry) and forwards the content to the user terminal).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose that includes tokens; cache entries of cached vector representations of tokens and cached responses generated for the tokens are semantically similar to a vector representation of the tokens; having a semantic similarity to the vector representation of the tokens that exceeds a threshold; with a semantic similarity that exceeds the threshold; having a semantic similarity to the vector representation of the tokens that exceeds the threshold.
However, Muschett discloses
receiving a request from user equipment that includes tokens for processing by compute functionality hosted by a compute environment (Muschett, [0100]: user request is tokenized; [0102]: the request is routed to models in LLM Layer 390);
determine whether cache entries of cached vector representations of tokens and cached responses generated for the tokens are semantically similar to a vector representation of the tokens (Muschett, [0148]: each LLM cache entry includes a question embedding/vector and answer; [0036]: embeddings represent tokens as vectors (cached representations of tokens); [0033]: the answer is generated by a language model in response to a prompt (cached response generated for the tokens); [0140]-[0141]: generating a vector representation QV of an input question in text format QT, and using QV to perform a semantic search of a cache (i.e., determine semantic similarity));
in response to identifying cache entry having a semantic similarity to the vector representation of the tokens that exceeds a threshold, providing the user equipment with a cached response of the cache entry (Muschett, [0141]: identifying a cache hit when the semantic relevance value/SRV (semantic similarity) is above a threshold);
in response to not identifying at least one cache entry with a semantic similarity that exceeds the threshold, routing the request to a network cache of the network (Muschett, [0141]: identifying a cache miss when no SRV (semantic similarity) exceeds the threshold, and forwarding the question (request) to create prompt 522); and
in response to identifying a cache entry having a semantic similarity to the vector representation of the tokens that exceeds the threshold, providing a cached response of the cache entry to provide to the user equipment (Muschett, [0141]: identifying a cache hit when the SRV (semantic similarity) is above a threshold; [0121]: responding to a user request with the corresponding LLM answer from the cache (cached response)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Muschett before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method that uses identifier-based edge cache and core cache searches as taught by Zhang, to include vector based semantic searches with relevance threshold as taught by Muschett. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve cache hit relevance for similar requests, thereby reducing unnecessary upstream cache retrievals, response latency and processing costs.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses comprising:
in response to not identifying at least one core cache entry, routing the request to the compute environment for processing by the compute functionality Zhang, [0064], [0080: if the core cache apparatus does not store the content corresponding to the content identifier, it forward the request message to the Internet (compute environment/compute functionality);
receiving a response generated by the compute functionality for the request (Zhang, [0064], [0080]); and
generating a new core cache entry to include the response (Zhang, [0080]).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose with a semantic similarity that exceeds the threshold; the tokens of the request; the vector representation of the tokens.
However, Muschett discloses
in response to not identifying at least one cache entry with a semantic similarity that exceeds the threshold, routing the request to the compute environment for processing by the compute functionality (Muschett, [0141], [0102]: if the SRV (semantic similarity) is not above a threshold, forwarding the question (request) to create prompt/prompt models (compute environment for processing by the compute functionality);
receiving a response generated by the compute functionality for the tokens of the request (Muschett, [0066]-[0067]: tokens processed by the language models; [0034]: the answer is output generated by the language model in response to the prompt; [0148]: storing the answer in the LLM cache entry); and
generating a new core cache entry to include the vector representation of the tokens and the response (Muschett, [0141]: on a cache miss, storing the question (vector representation of the tokens) in the cache; [0148]: the LLM cache entry includes the question (vector representations of the tokens) and the answer text (response)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Muschett before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method for core cache miss and cache populating as taught by Zhang, to include semantic vector caching and LLM processing as taught by Muschett. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that requests not satisfying the semantic cache threshold are processed by the LLM, and the resulting question vector and response are cached for later semantically similar request, thereby improving cache hit rates and reducing response times and processing costs.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses comprising:
routing the response from the core network to the network edge cache to store as the new edge cache entry and to provide to the user equipment (Zhang, [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations have been addressed in the limitations of claim 1, and furthermore Zhang discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors configured for executing instructions to perform operations comprising (Zhang, [0167]):
receiving a request from user equipment that includes a tokens targeting compute functionality hosted by a compute environment (Zhang, [0063]-[0064]: receiving content request message from a user terminal requesting content from the Internet (compute environment)).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the request is received from a generative artificial intelligence (AI) application, and wherein the compute functionality includes at least one of a machine learning model, a large language model, or a neural processing task.
However, Muschett discloses wherein the request is received from a generative artificial intelligence (AI) application, and wherein the compute functionality includes at least one of a machine learning model, a large language model, or a neural processing task (Muschett, [0100]: client request is sent to the generative AI RAG layer; [0102]: the request is routed to models in the LLM Layer 390).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Muschett before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an edge cache and core cache system as taught by Zhang, to process application requests using generative AI/LLM functionality as taught by Muschett. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the system to generate contextually appropriate natural language responses.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore, Zhang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors facilitate performance of operations comprising (Zhang, [0167]):
receiving a request from user equipment that includes a tokens targeting compute functionality hosted by a compute environment (Zhang, [0063]-[0064]: receiving content request message from a user terminal requesting content from the Internet (compute environment)).
Claims 4-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Muschett, further in view of Luciw (US 2013/0159451).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the network edge cache (Zhang, [0062]).
Zhang and Muschett do not explicitly disclose comprising: segmenting the network edge cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts; and defining permission boundaries for accessing cache domains of the plurality of cache domains based upon the contexts.
However, Luciw discloses comprising:
segmenting the cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts (Luciw, [0031]: semantic cache has Q-context processing for semantic object groups (cache domains); [0036]: Q-contexts are created for semantic object groups clustered by time, location, etc. (different contexts)); and
defining permission boundaries for accessing cache domains of the plurality of cache domains based upon the contexts (Luciw, [0034]: cached processing is bounded by Q-context assertions, queries and rules (permission boundaries) for every active semantic object (cache domain); [0035]: device application access is based on those Q-context assertions, queries and rules (permission boundaries)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Luciw before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify network edge cache as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to use context-based object groups and access rules as taught by Luciw. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide context appropriate access to cached content.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang and Muschett do not explicitly disclose comprising: defining a context as questions related to a topic or a category of products or services.
However, Luciw discloses comprising: defining a context as questions related to a topic or a category of products or services (Luciw, [0033]: a Q-context defines queries relevant to a semantic object (topic)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Luciw before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a network edge cache as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to use context-based object groups and access rules as taught by Luciw. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide context appropriate access to cached content.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang does not explicitly disclose comprising: defining a multi-dimensional permission boundary for a cache domain based upon a user information, a time of the request, and a location of the user equipment.
However, Muschett discloses comprising: defining a multi-dimensional permission boundary for a cache domain based upon a user information, a time of the request, and a location of the user equipment (Muschett, [0131]: using role, time, etc. (multi-dimensional) as cache context metadata, and as filter criteria that must match exactly (permission boundary); [0143]: Q-metadata includes user, role and user metadata (user information), time associated with the input question (time of the request) and IP address; [0053]: IP address approximates a user’s geographic location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Muschett before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an edge and core cache system as taught by Zhang, to include user, time and device location metadata as cache context filter criteria as taught by Muschett. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the relevance of cache hits.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang does not explicitly disclose comprising: defining a multi-dimensional permission boundary for a cache domain, wherein the multi-dimensional permission boundary specifies a user, an application, a time of day, and a location as a context allowed to access the cache domain.
However, Muschett discloses comprising: defining a multi-dimensional permission boundary for a cache domain, wherein the multi-dimensional permission boundary specifies a user, a time of day, and a location as a context allowed to access the cache domain. (Muschett, [0131]: using role, time, etc. (multi-dimensional) as cache context metadata, and as filter criteria that must match exactly (permission boundary); [0143]: Q-metadata includes user, role and user metadata, time associated with the input question and IP address; [0053]: IP address approximates a user’s geographic location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Muschett before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an edge and core cache system as taught by Zhang, to include user, time and device location metadata as cache context filter criteria as taught by Muschett. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the relevance of cache hits.
The combination of Zhang and Muschett does not explicitly disclose an application.
However, Luciw discloses wherein the multi-dimensional permission boundary specifies an application as a context allowed to access the cache domain (Luciw, [0038]: semantic cache clusters enforce security and access control policies based on Q-context processing (multi-dimensional permission boundary); cache access control is based on semantic device application via Q-context processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Luciw before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a network edge cache as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to include Q-context based access control policies based on device application semantics as taught by Luciw. The motivation for doing so would have been to restrict access to cached responses according to the applicable application context and prevent unauthorized access.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the network edge cache (Zhang, [0062]).
Zhang and Muschett do not explicitly disclose comprising: segmenting the network edge cache into a plurality of cache domains based upon at least one of permission boundaries, application domains, or tenants.
However, Luciw discloses comprising: segmenting the cache into a plurality of cache domains based upon at least one of permission boundaries, application domains, or tenants (Luciw, [0026]-[0027]: caching and proxying semantic web traffic into three namespaces (cache domains): public, private shadow and an activated private Q-context namespace secured and opaque to users).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Luciw before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a network edge cache as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to organize cached information into public and private namespaces as taught by Luciw. The motivation for doing so would have been to restrict access to cached information according to access requirements in order to prevent unauthorized access.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the network core cache (Zhang, [0062]).
Zhang and Muschett do not explicitly disclose comprising: segmenting the network core cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts; and defining permission boundaries for accessing cache domains of the plurality of cache domains.
However, Luciw discloses comprising:
segmenting the network core cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts (Luciw, [0031]: semantic cache has Q-context processing for semantic object groups (cache domains); [0036]: Q-contexts are created for semantic object groups (cache domains) clustered by time, location, etc. (different contexts)); and
defining permission boundaries for accessing cache domains of the plurality of cache domains (Luciw, [0038]: cache clusters enforce security and access control policies (boundary permissions) based on semantic device application semantics via Q-context processing; [0035]: device application access is based on Q-context assertions, queries and rules (permission boundaries)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Luciw before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a network core cache as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to use context-based object groups (cache domains) with access control rules as taught by Luciw. The motivation for doing so would have been to restrict access to cached information according to context in order to prevent unauthorized access.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses the network edge cache (Zhang, [0062]).
Zhang and Muschett do not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: segmenting the network edge cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts; determining a current context of the request; and providing access to cache domains of the plurality of cache domains based upon the current context corresponding to contexts of the cache domains.
However, Luciw discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
segmenting the cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts (Luciw, [0031]: Q-context processing for semantic object groups (cache domains); [0036]: Q-contexts for those object groups clustered by time, location, etc. (different contexts));
determining a current context of the request (Luciw, [0024]: recording time, location and context (current context) for received web traffic (request)); and
providing access to cache domains of the plurality of cache domains based upon the current context corresponding to contexts of the cache domains (Luciw, [0035]: basing device application access and response on Q-context assertions, queries and rules; [0036]: Q-contexts for semantic object groups (cache domains) clustered by time, location, etc. (contexts); [“corresponding” is the satisfying of the applicable Q-context conditions]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Luciw before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a network edge cache as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to use context-based object groups (cache domains) with access control rules as taught by Luciw. The motivation for doing so would have been to restrict access to cached information according to context in order to prevent unauthorized access.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the network edge cache (Zhang, [0062]).
Zhang and Muschett do not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: segmenting the network edge cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts; determining a current context of the request; and restricting access to cache domains of the plurality of cache domains based upon the current context not corresponding to contexts of the cache domains.
However, Luciw discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
segmenting the cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts (Luciw, [0031]: Q-context processing for semantic object groups (cache domains); [0036]: Q-contexts for those object groups clustered by time, location, etc. (different contexts));
determining a current context of the request (Luciw, [0024]: recording time, location and context (current context) for received web traffic (request)); and
restricting access to cache domains of the plurality of cache domains based upon the current context not corresponding to contexts of the cache domains (Luciw, [0036]: Q-contexts for semantic object groups (cache domains) clustered by time, location, etc. (contexts); [0038]: enforcing access control through Q-context processing; [“not corresponding” is the failure to satisfy the applicable Q-context conditions]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Luciw before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a network edge cache as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to use context-based object groups (cache domains) with access control rules as taught by Luciw. The motivation for doing so would have been to restrict access to cached information according to context in order to prevent unauthorized access.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses the network edge cache (Zhang, [0062]).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: segmenting the network edge cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts; determining a current context of the request based upon authentication information; and providing access to cache domains of the plurality of cache domains based upon the current context corresponding to contexts of the cache domains.
However, Muschett discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a current context of the request (Muschett, [0053]: question-metadata includes authentication data; [0131]: using metadata to provide context to the cache); and
providing access to cache based upon the current context (Muschett, [0131]: using cache context metadata as filter criteria that must match exactly so that responses are appropriate to the cache context).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Muschett before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify network edge cache as taught by Zhang, to use authentication information as cache context metadata as taught by Muschett. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide cached responses appropriate to the authenticated user or request.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Muschett does not explicitly disclose segmenting the network edge cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts; based upon authentication information; cache domains of the plurality of cache domains based upon the current context corresponding to contexts of the cache domains.
However, Luciw discloses
segmenting the cache into a plurality of cache domains corresponding to different contexts (Luciw, [0031]: Q-context processing for semantic object groups (cache domains); [0036]: Q-contexts for those object groups clustered by time, location, etc. (different contexts));
determining a current context of the request (Luciw, [0024]: recording time, location and context (current context) for received web traffic (request)); and
providing access to cache domains of the plurality of cache domains based upon the current context corresponding to contexts of the cache domains (Luciw, [0035]: basing device application access and response on Q-context assertions, queries and rules; [0036]: Q-contexts for semantic object groups (cache domains) clustered by time, location, etc. (contexts); [“corresponding” is the satisfying of the applicable Q-context conditions]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Luciw before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a network core cache as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to use context-based object groups (cache domains) with access control rules as taught by Luciw. The motivation for doing so would have been to restrict access to cached information according to context in order to prevent unauthorized access.
Claims 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Muschett, further in view of Badic et al. (US 2024/0259480), hereinafter Badic.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses wherein the operations further comprise: hosting a plurality of network edge caches located at different network edge compute nodes of the network (Zhang, Fig. 4, [0074]: multiple edge cache apparatuses; an edge cache is deployed on a base station side).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose for caching vector representations of tokens into vector databases searchable using the vector representations as keys; utilizing an edge discover service to identify the network edge cache as a preferred edge cache for the request; converting, by the network edge cache, the tokens into the vector representation of the tokens utilizing a tokenization and embedding process; and determining the semantic similarity based upon a vector similarity calculation.
However, Muschett discloses
for caching vector representations of tokens into vector databases searchable using the vector representations as keys (Muschett, [0148], [0150]-[0151]: storing question embeddings/vectors (vector representations of tokens) in an LLM cache implemented using an Elasticsearch (vector database) index configured for vector searching; [0140]-[0141]: generating a question vector and using that vector to search the question portion of the cache);
converting the tokens into the vector representation of the tokens utilizing a tokenization and embedding process (Muschett, [0100]: using tokenization and an embedding model inference to map input text into a vector space (vector representations)); and
determining the semantic similarity based upon a vector similarity calculation (Muschett, [0141]: using the question vector to search a question portion of the cache (i.e., vector similarity calculation) and produce semantic relevance values (semantic similarity)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Muschett before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a system of network edge caches as taught by Zhang, to use vector-based semantic caching as taught by Muschett. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the relevance and hit rate of cached responses for similar requests, thereby reducing response latency and processing costs.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Muschett does not explicitly disclose utilizing an edge discover service to identify the network edge cache as a preferred edge cache for the request.
However, Badic discloses utilizing an edge discover service to identify the network edge cache as a preferred edge cache for the request (Badic, [0130]: using a Service Discovery Unit (edge discovery service) to discover and associate with the most suitable and available MEC application server (cache) for the UE’s application requirements (request)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Badic before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a network edge cache system as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to use service discovery to select a suitable server (cache) for a request as taught by Badic. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate selection of an edge cache that satisfies an application’s requirements and reduces communication delays.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses the network edge cache (Zhang, [0062]).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, by a network application programming interface from the user equipment, an inquiry that includes an application identifier of an application hosted by the user equipment that generated the request, a device identifier of the user equipment, and user information of a user of the application; and accessing an edge discovery service to add a device location and a current time to the inquiry for selecting the network edge cache from a plurality of available network edge caches.
However, Muschett discloses
receiving, by a network application programming interface from the user equipment, an inquiry that includes a device identifier of the user equipment, and user information of a user of the application (Muschett, [0099]-[0100]: client devices and applications communicate through cloud APIs and an API gateway; [0143]: input question (inquiry) metadata includes User, Role, and user metadata (user information), and Machine ID (device identifier)); and
to add a device location and a current time to the inquiry (Muschett, [0143]: Time and IP address are metadata associated (added) with the input question; [0053]: IP address approximates a device’s location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Muschett before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify edge cache processing of user requests as taught by Zhang, to include user, device, time and device location metadata as cache search filter criteria as taught by Muschett. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide context for the cache so that responses are appropriate to the context of the request.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Muschett does not explicitly disclose an application identifier of an application hosted by the user equipment that generated the request; accessing an edge discovery service; for selecting the network edge cache from a plurality of available network edge caches.
However, Badic discloses
receiving, an inquiry that includes an application identifier of an application hosted by the user equipment that generated the request (Badic, [0119]: the APU is implemented in the UE; [0134]: the SDU receives application information containing application ID of an application executing on the UE); and
accessing an edge discovery service to add a device location to the inquiry for selecting the cache from a plurality of available caches (Badic, [0130], [0135]-[0136]: Service Discovery Unit (edge discovery service) obtains information about available EDNs/MEC servers (caches) so that a UE can discover the most suitable available MEC server (cache); [0138]: accessing the UE location; [0140]: pre-selecting EDNs/MEC servers (caches) based on capabilities, costs and application requirements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Badic before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a network edge cache system as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to use service discovery to select a suitable server (cache) for a request as taught by Badic. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate selection of an edge cache that satisfies an application’s requirements and reduces communication delays.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses the network edge cache (Zhang, [0062]).
Zhang and Muschett do not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: accessing, by the edge discovery service, a permission management service using the inquiry to generate cache information; and providing the cache information to the application for generating the request to send to the network edge cache.
However, Badic discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
accessing, by the edge discovery service, a permission management service using the inquiry to generate cache information (Badic, [0135]-[0136]: SDU (edge discovery service) sends an MEC Availability Request (inquiry) to the core network and receives an MEC Availability Reply containing available MEC server information (cache information); server availability depends on UE subscription; [functionality determining the availability is the “permission management service”]); and
providing the cache information to the application for generating the request to send to the network edge cache (Badic, [0140]: communicating available MEC server information (cache information) within the UE; [0146]: using MEC Availability Reply information for offloading decision and routing the application to a MEC server; [0159]: UE generates an Offloading Request to the discovered MEC server (network edge cache)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang, Muschett and Badic before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a network edge cache system as taught by Zhang and Muschett, to use MEC availability and subscription information in the edge discovery process as taught by Badic. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate selection of an edge cache that satisfies an application’s requirements and reduces communication delays.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESA M KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)431-0704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
/LESA M KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights