Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/499,403

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ESTABLISHING SECURE CONNECTIONS FOR EDGE COMPUTING SERVICES

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Oct 12, 2021
Examiner
CAREY, FORREST L
Art Unit
2491
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
142 granted / 256 resolved
-2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +54% interview lift
Without
With
+54.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
287
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
§103
59.7%
+19.7% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 256 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered. Status of Claims Claims 15, 20-22, 27-28 are pending. Claims 1-14, 16-19, 23-26 are cancelled. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 15, 20-22, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of exchanging key identifiers and key information, which is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, such as Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AKMA) Anchor Function and an Edge Enabler Server do not amount to more than providing devices/mediums for the exchange of key identifiers and key information, and the User Equipment, and Authentication Server Function perform insignificant extra-solution activity, such as generating additional key information which the first key information is “based on”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, such as receiving the key identifier information and transmitting the second key information via a Network Exposure Function (NEF), merely represent generic modules performing well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions such as facilitating the transfer of data. The claim(s) recite no meaningful improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Claim 22 recites the corresponding system to claim 15, and is rejected for corresponding reasons, as the additional hardware elements, e.g. a transceiver for exchanging key information, and a processor to implement the method, do not add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as the Network Exposure Function, above. None of the dependent claims fix this and are therefore rejected for the same reasons. In order to fix this, Applicant must recite an improvement to the computer environment, such as using the keys to perform encryption/authentication functions, or similar. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 15, 20-22, 27-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15 recites a method performed by an “Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AKMA) Anchor Function (AAnF)” which performs steps. However, subject matter disclosing such an AAnF performing the claimed functions cannot be found in the original disclosure, filed 10/12/2021, drawing to foreign priority, IN 2024 41044423, dated 10/12/2020. The first reference to the claimed AAnF is in the preliminary amendment filed 4/4/2023, e.g. new claim 16, “wherein the second network entity is included in an Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AAnF) in the communication system”. This mirrors one of the only three references to the AAnF in the specification, found in paragraphs [0055]: “Further, it is not possible for the ECS(4), hosted by a 3rd party service provider offering edge computing services, to have interface with the AAnF of the HN as seen in FIG. 2.”, [0100]: “In yet another embodiment, the EIWF(326) is collocated with an Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AAnF). AAnF is network entity/function specified in the 3GPP TS 33.535 for Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AKMA).”, and [0130]: “In an embodiment, the EIWF(326) contacts AAnF, based on the AKMA Key ID provided by the UE(310) and obtains the KAF. The KAF is used as the KEDGE between the UE(310) and the EIWF(326)”. In none of these cases, is the AAnF performing the claimed functions. The nearest subject matter is [0100], which makes clear that the Edge Inter Working Function (EIWF) is merely collocated with the AAnF. Indeed, the specification makes clear that it is the EIWF which appears to be performing the claimed functions, not the AAnF. Therefore, due to the specification providing no support for the AAnF performing the claimed functions of receiving first key information and key identifier information, receiving a key request from the EES, obtaining second key information, and transmitting the second key information to the EES, the claim lacks written description. Claim 22 contains corresponding subject matter and is therefore rejected for corresponding reasons. None of the dependent claims fix this and are therefore rejected for the same reasons. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15, 20-22, 27-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FORREST L CAREY whose telephone number is (571)270-7814. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:30PM M-F. 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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. /FORREST L CAREY/Examiner, Art Unit 2491 /WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 12, 2021
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 12, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jul 11, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 29, 2024
Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jan 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Aug 06, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jan 15, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 15, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603864
Systems and Methods for Uploading Streamed Objects to a Cloud Storage System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596832
AUTOMATED DETECTION AND PREVENTION OF DISCLOSURE OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION VIA ELECTRONIC MESSAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12572684
SECURE MULTI-PARTY COMPUTATION OF DIFFERENTIALLY PRIVATE HEAVY HITTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566865
MEMBERSHIP INFERENCE ATTACKS USING MULTIPLE SPECIALIZED MACHINE LEARNING MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12547689
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTINUOUS PRIVACY-PRESERVING FACIAL-BASED AUTHENTICATION AND FEEDBACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+54.4%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 256 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month