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 .
This action is in response to application filed 07/14/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Claims 21-31 were cancelled in the preliminary amendments filed 07/14/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2025 and 09/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
This application is a national phase entry of the International application filed on January 17, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LEE et al. (hereinafter LEE, US 2025/0168281 A1).
As per claim 1, LEE discloses a method to be implemented in a network node of a network for policy and charging control rule generation (Fig. 2: SMF Node implements the process, [0107]), the method comprising:
receiving a first policy and charging control rule that identifies an edge application, a location of the edge application, and policy information for the edge application ([0148-0149], [0173], fig. 2: step #202, fig. 6: step #602, fig. 7 and [0249-0260]: receiving PCC rule with SDF including FQDN and actual policy details. Note: FQDN acts both as identifier of the edge application AND location of the edge application as per applicant’s spec [0042]);
generating a second policy and charging control rule for a user equipment (UE) interacting with an edge application server of the edge application based on the first policy and charging control rule ([0150-0155], fig. 2: step #203, fig. 6: step #607, fig. 7 step #709: SMF generating N4 Rules, [0100], [0291]: N4 Rules such as FER, QER, URR necessary to perform functions such as gate control, charging policy application, etc. is generated), the second policy and charging control rule identifying the policy information for the edge application and an Internet Protocol (IP) address corresponding to the edge application server ([0150-0155], fig. 7 step #709: N4 Rule creation using IP address); and
causing application of the second policy and charging control rule on a traffic flow between the UE and the edge application server ([0151], fig. 7, [0224-0225]: install N4 rule and apply, [0100]).
As per claim 2, LEE discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first policy and charging control rule identifies the edge application through one or more of an edge application identifier of the edge application and a domain name of the edge application ([0148-0151]: FQDN).
As per claim 4, LEE discloses the method of claim 1 , wherein upon the edge application server being created ([0124-0125]: the SMF receives EAS deployment information from the PCF, i.e. when the edge application server is deployed or created, fig. 4 item #441: EAS server), the network node receives a first notification that indicates information of the edge application server, including:
one or more of an edge application identifier of the edge application and a domain name of the edge application, the IP address corresponding to the edge application server; and
a location of the edge application server ([0132], [0187-0197], [0219]: after the deployment information is received, various rules are configured based on FQDN and IP address).
As per claim 5, LEE discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the network node receives the first notification responsive to the network node subscribing to lifecycle event notification regarding the edge application ([0219-0221], fig. 5, fig. 7 step #703 and 708: EASDF sends DNS report to SMF based on DNS message handling rule with respect to FQDN subscribed by SMF. The message handling rule informs the EASDF how to handle DNS inquires and what to do).
As per claim 6, LEE discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the network node stores the information of the edge application server and the first policy and charging control rule in a datastore coupled to the network node ([0054-0055]: the UDM stores user’s subscription data, policy data and the like, [0248-0260]).
As per claim 7, LEE discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the first policy and charging control rule is stored in the datastore with a search key being one or more of the edge application identifier of the edge application and the domain name of the edge application ([0054-0055]: the UDM stores user’s subscription data, policy data and the like, [0248-0260]: The received PCC rule includes PCC rule id, SDF template comprising FQDN, charging-related information such as charging keys, charging methods, service identifier, ASP identifier, etc.).
As per claim 8, LEE discloses the method of claim 4, wherein generating the second policy and charging control rule for interacting with the edge application server based on the first policy and charging control rule is responsive to receiving a second notification (fig.5 step #504: DNS report, fig. 6 step #606, fig. 7) that indicates:
one or more of the edge application identifier of the edge application server and the domain name of the edge application, and the IP address corresponding to the edge application server (fig.5 step #504: DNS report comprising FQDN and IP address, fig. 6 step #606, fig. 7, [01500151, [0219-0225]).
As per claim 9, LEE discloses the method of claim 1 , wherein the edge application server is discovered through one or more of an edge application server discovery function (EASDF), a domain name system (DNS) server, and an edge enabler server of the network (Fig. 5-fig. 6: EASDF, [0113-0114]: EASDF performs EAS discovery function, fig. 7: both EASDF and DNS are used).
As per claim 10, LEE discloses the method of claim 9, wherein one or more of the IP address corresponding to the edge application server and other attributes of the edge application server are obtained responsive to a request initiated from the UE ([0216-0225], fig. 7 step #705, 708-712, 714 are all in response to initial DNS query request made by UE).
As per claim 12, LEE discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the network node discovers the edge application server responsive to subscription of the network node for notification from one or more the EASDF, the DNS, and the edge enabler server of the network (fig. 5: step #503-504, [0126-0139], [0219-0220], [0277]).
As per claim 13, LEE discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the application of the second policy and charging control rule comprises causing the UE to be charged for the traffic flow between the UE and the edge application server using the second policy and charging control rule ([0100], [0291]: N4 Rules such as FER, QER, URR necessary to perform functions such as gate control, charging policy application, etc. is generated and applied).
As per claim 14, LEE discloses the method of claim 13, wherein causing the UE to be charged for the traffic flow between the UE and the edge application server using the second policy and charging control rule comprises transforming one or more attributes of the edge application server into a parameter mapping to a charging key ([0150]: N4 Rule is associated with FQDN or application identifier, which is used to determine N4 rules which defines one or more charging policies, [0100], [0173-0174], [0291]).
As per claim 15, LEE discloses the method of claim 1 , wherein the network node implements a session management function (SMF) for the policy and charging control rule generation (Fig. 2 #132, fig. 3 #132, fig. 5, fig. 6, [0053]).
As per claims 16-17, and 19-20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-2, 4-5. Therefore claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-2, 4-5.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (hereinafter LEE, US 2025/0168281 A1) in view of DAO et al. (hereinafter DAO, 2020/0145876 A1).
As per claim 3, LEE discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, LEE does not teach further comprising:
initiating a query to a network exposure function (NEF) about the edge application; and
receiving additional information from the NEF to be used for generating the second policy and charging control rule.
DAO, from the same field of endeavor, teaches initiating a query to a network exposure function (NEF) about the edge application ([0304]: SMF requests PFDs for the application identifier from the NEF); and
receiving additional information from the NEF to be used for generating the second policy and charging control rule ([304]: SMF receives requested information from the NEF, [0329-0332]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify before the effective filing of the claimed invention LEE in view of DAO in order to request additional information from NEF.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because additional information is used to manage or handle the packets of the packet flow and the process further enables the provisioning and management of the packet flow descriptors ([268-269], [0332]).
As per claim 11, LEE discloses the method of claim 10, as set forth above.
However, LEE does not teach wherein the UE initiates the request upon moving to a new location.
DAO, from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the UE initiates the request upon moving to a new location ([0148-0159]: request is based on handover, which means user changed location and initiated request for PDU session, after which it received other session related information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify before the effective filing of the claimed invention LEE in view of DAO in order to have the UE initiate a request for a session upon moving to a new location.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order to continue the existing session.
As per claim 18, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Han et al., US 11,825,400 B2: Supporting Transfer of Mobile Edge computing in wireless systems.
DAO et al., US 2022/0174539 A1: Method and System for using policy to handle packets.
Li et al., US 2014/0036785 A1: Method and Device for controlling QoS and Policy and Charging Control of a guest user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL B DIVECHA whose telephone number is (571)272-5863. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Normal Hours M-F: 8am-4.30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, COLLEEN FAUZ can be reached at 5712721667. 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.
KAMAL B. DIVECHA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights