DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 07/28/2025. Claims 1, 2, 7-12, and 17-20 are amended in the preliminary amendments filed on 07/28/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaus et al. (US 2023/0284129 A1, hereinafter “Zaus”) in view of Gupta et al. (US 2022/0030063 A1, hereinafter “Gupta”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 11), Zaus teaches:
A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising:
a processor configured to (processor, Zaus: [0029]):
receive a group profile associated with an application client (AC) at the WTRU (receiving parameters such as authorization credentials and AC profile information, Zaus: [0045], [0050]);
send a provisioning request message to an edge configuration server (ECS), wherein the provisioning request message comprises information related to the group profile (sending provisioning request including parameters, Zaus: [0045]);
receive an indication of an edge enabler server (EES) associated with the group profile from the ECS in response to the provisioning request message (receiving information associated with EES suitable for parameters provided in provisioning request, Zaus: [0046]);
send a discovery request message to the EES (sending discovery request to EES, Zaus: [0049]);
receive a discovery response message, wherein the discovery response message comprises information indicating one or more edge application servers (EASs) (receiving discovery response including addresses for multiple EASs, Zaus: [0049]);
select an EAS based on the discovery response message (selecting EAS based on discovery response, Zaus: [0049]).
Zaus does not explicitly disclose:
send a provisioning request message to the EES, wherein the provisioning request message comprises an indication of the selected EAS for the AC.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gupta teaches:
send a provisioning request message to the EES, wherein the provisioning request message comprises an indication of the selected EAS for the AC (providing selected EAS information to EES, Gupta: [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaus in view of Gupta in order to further modify the method for selecting EAS based on discovery response from the teachings of Zaus with the method for providing selected EAS information to EES from the teachings of Gupta.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled selection of optimal target server for service continuity (Gupta: [0056], [0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Zaus-Gupta teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Zaus-Gupta further discloses:
wherein the provisioning request message comprises an indication of the group profile, wherein the group profile comprises an AC client authorization type and AC authorization credentials associated with the AC, and wherein the discovery request message comprises the AC authorization type and the AC authorization credentials (parameters such as authorization credentials and AC profile information, Zaus: [0045], [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Zaus-Gupta teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Zaus-Gupta further discloses:
wherein the group profile comprises an application client group profile (AGP) and an AC group type (parameters such as AC group profile information, Zaus: [0116]).
Regarding claim 4, Zaus-Gupta teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Zaus-Gupta further discloses:
wherein the AGP comprises authorization credentials to join a group (parameters such as authorization credentials and AC group profile information to join, Zaus: [0045], [0050], [0116]).
Regarding claim 5, Zaus-Gupta teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Zaus-Gupta further discloses:
wherein the AC group type is dynamic grouping, pre-grouping, or none (AC group profile information indicating expected geographical service area, Zaus: [0116], [0117]).
Regarding claim 6, Zaus-Gupta teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Zaus-Gupta further discloses:
wherein the provisioning request message comprises the AGP (provisioning request including parameters such as AC group profile information, Zaus: [0045], [0050], [0116]).
Regarding claim 7, Zaus-Gupta teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Zaus-Gupta further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to select the one or more EASs based on the group profile and an application client (AC) group type (selecting EAS based on parameters, Zaus: [0049], [0050], [0116]).
Regarding claims 12-17, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2-7. Therefore, claims 12-17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2-7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Sodagar (US 2023/0353643 A1: Edge Application Server Discovery and Identification of Activated Edge Application Servers and Associated Profiles), Zaus et al. (US 2022/0321673 A1: Determining a Common Application Context Relocation Method for Edge Computing), and Kim et al. (US 2023/0108959 A1: Communication Method and Apparatus in Wireless Communication System Supporting Edge Computing).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm 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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights