Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/708,047

MULTI-ACCESS EDGE COMPUTING, MEC, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPERATING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 30, 2022
Examiner
WINDER, PATRICE L
Art Unit
2453
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
550 granted / 632 resolved
+29.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
658
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 632 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 23, 2025 has been entered. 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabella et al., US 20180183855 A1 (hereafter referred to as Sabella) in view of Agrawal et al., WO 2019057268 A1 (hereafter referred to as Agrawal) Claim 13, Sabella teaches a first edge computing entity that is configured to provide supporting functions for serving at least one application (p. 38, “mobile edge hosts (MEHs) 200 (including MEH 200-1, MEH 200-2, and MEH 200-3) may execute compute-intensive functionalities of applications (e.g., including App1, App2, and App3) …”), the first edge computing entity comprising: one or more memories storing instructions (p. 29, “A process may be implemented as program code, which may be stored by computer-readable storage media, and when the program code is executed by one or more processors of a computer device/system, causes the computer device/system to perform the various operations of the process.”); and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (p. 33, “…[T]he term “computer device” may describe any physical hardware device capable of sequentially and automatically carrying out a sequence of arithmetic or logical operations, equipped to record/store data on a machine readable medium, and transmit and receive data from one or more other devices in a communications network.”) to: perform a retrieval procedure comprising: sending, to an edge entity that registers other edge computing entities (p. 77, “The Mp1 reference point is between the MEP 337 and the MEAs 336. The Mp1 reference point may provide service registration 337D, service discovery, and communication support for various services, such as the MESs 337A.”), a request to retrieve an address of a second edge computing entity that is configured to provide supporting functions for serving at least one further application (p. 72, “The MEP 337 can also provide various services and/or functions, such as offering an environment where the MEAs 336 can discover, advertise, consume and offer MESs 337A (discussed infra), including MESs 337A available via other platforms when supported.”); and perform, via an edge computing entity to edge computing entity reference point that is configured to enable direct interaction between the first edge computing entity and the second edge computing entity (p. 72, “the MEP 337 may communicate with other MEPs 337 of other MEHs 200 via the Mp3 reference point.”), a discovery procedure comprising: sending, via the edge computing entity to edge computing entity reference point, to the second edge computing entity, a discovery request for discovering information for accessing the at least one further application (p. 72, “The MEP 337 within the MEH 200 may be a collection of essential functionality required to run MEAs 336 on a particular VI 338 and enable them to provide and consume MESs 337A.” “The MEP 337 can also provide various services and/or functions, such as offering an environment where the MEAs 336 can discover, …. MESs 337A (discussed infra), including MESs 337A available via other platforms when supported.”); and receiving, via the edge computing entity to edge computing entity reference point, from the second edge computing entity, a discovery response including discovered information for accessing the at least one further application (p. 72, “The MEP 337 can also provide various services and/or functions, such as offering an environment where the MEAs 336 can … consume and offer MESs 337A (discussed infra), including MESs 337A available via other platforms when supported.”). Sabella does not specifically teach a request to retrieve an address of a second edge computing entity that is configured to provide supporting functions for serving at least one further application; and receiving, from the edge entity, a response to the request, the response including the address of the second edge computing entity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Agrawal teaches a request to retrieve an address of a second edge computing entity that is configured to provide supporting functions for serving at least one further application (p. 61, “Registering the edge service includes registering the edge service as an endpoint indicated by one or more of an Internet Protocol (IP) address, a port, a protocol, or a universal resource locator (URL).” “Registering the edge service also includes registering discovery criteria for the edge service such as a cell identifier. The edge service is therefore discoverable by the edge service agent…” And p. 42, “the apparatus includes at least one memory configured to implement a service registry and the at least one processor is configured to query the service registry that stores discovery criteria for the edge service.”); and receiving, from the edge entity, a response to the request, the response including the address of the second edge computing entity (p. 73, “The service registry 265 stores this information so that the edge service 205 becomes discoverable by an edge service agent 270 that is implemented in the edge network 245. The edge service agent 270 is then able to set service-specific configuration parameters to configure the edge service 205 to execute service-specific computations and generate service results.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sabella to incorporate a service registry request and response from Agrawal into the discovery system in Sabella to facilitate improved access to registered edge entities and thereby improve the accuracy and usefulness of service results generated. Claim 1 is a method comprising steps similar to operations of the first edge entity above. Claim 1 is rejected on a similar rationale. Claim 2, Sabella-Agrawal teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first edge computing entity forms part of a first edge network and the second edge computing entity forms part of a second edge network (Sabella, p. 69, “The network level 303 includes various external network level entities, such as a 3GPP network 440 (see e.g., FIG. 1), a local area network 441 (e.g., a LAN, WLAN, PAN, etc.), and an external network 442 (e.g., network 150). The mobile edge host level 301 includes mobile edge host level management 401 and mobile edge host (MEH) 200.”). Claim 3, Sabella-Agrawal teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the first edge network is provided by a first edge computing provider and the second edge network is provided by a second edge computing provider (Sabella, p. 53, “the MEHs 200 may be co-located or operated by RNCs, which may be the case for legacy network deployments, such as 3G networks.” And p. 69, “The mobile edge host level 301 may include MEHs 200 and mobile edge (ME) management (mgmt) 330, which provide functionality to run mobile edge applications (MEAs) 336 within an operator network or a subset of an operator network.”). Claim 6, Sabella-Agrawal teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising storing the discovered information received from the second edge computing entity (Sabella, p. 72, “The MEP 337 may also receive DNS records from the mobile edge platform manager 331 and configure a DNS proxy/server accordingly.” Configuring a DNS with the records is interpreted as storing.). Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabella and Agrawal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuzawa, US 20180295098 A1 (hereafter referred to as Yuzawa). Claim 7, Sabella-Agrawal teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising performing a registration procedure comprising: sending to the edge entity that registers the other edge computing entities, a registration request, the registration request including an identifier of the first edge computing entity and information for accessing the at least one application (Sabella, p. 74, “MESs 337A may be services provided and consumed either by the MEP 337 or MEAs 336. When provided by an application, an MES 337A can be registered in a list of services 337D to the MEP 337 over the Mp1 reference point. Additionally, the MEAs 336 can subscribe to one or more services 337A for which it is authorized over the Mp1 reference point.”). Sabella-Agrawal does not specifically teach receiving from the edge entity, a registration response acknowledging registration success in a case where registration has been a success. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yuzawa teaches receiving from the edge entity, a registration response acknowledging registration success in a case where registration has been a success (p. 54, “In a case where a request for generation or operation of each application on the MEC server is received, a service registry authenticates whether or not the application is legitimate, registers the application, and responds to an inquiry from other entities.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sabella-Agrawal to incorporate acknowledging registration success from Yuzawa for registered edge entities to improve reliability of the search results and decrease the likelihood of malicious entries. Claim 8, Sabella-Agrawal-Yuzawa teaches the method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the registration request includes authentication information for the first edge computing entity for verification at the edge entity that registers the other edge computing entities (Yuzawa, p. 54, “In a case where a request for generation or operation of each application on the MEC server is received, a service registry authenticates whether or not the application is legitimate, registers the application, and responds to an inquiry from other entities.”). Claim 9, Sabella-Agrawal-Yuzawa teaches the method as claimed in claim 7, further comprising receiving, from the edge entity that registers one or more edge computing entities, a registration response indicating registration failure in a case where registration has failed (Yuzawa, p. 54, “In a case where a request for generation or operation of each application on the MEC server is received, a service registry authenticates whether or not the application is legitimate, registers the application, and responds to an inquiry from other entities.”). Claim 10, Sabella-Agrawal-Yuzama teaches the method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the registration request, and the registration response (Agrawal, p. 42, “the apparatus includes at least one memory configured to implement a service registry and the at least one processor is configured to query the service registry that stores discovery criteria for the edge service.”), are communicated via a reference point provided between the edge entity that registers the other edge computing entities and the first edge computing entity (in combination with Sabella, p. 72, “Furthermore, the MEP 337 may communicate with other MEPs 337 of other MEHs 200 via the Mp3 reference point.”), the reference point being configured to enable interactions between one or more edge computing entities and the edge entity that registers the other edge computing entities (in combination with Sabella, p. 72, “Furthermore, the MEP 337 may communicate with other MEPs 337 of other MEHs 200 via the Mp3 reference point.”). Claim 11, Sabella-Agrawal-Yuzama teaches the method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the request to retrieve the address of the second edge computing entity, and the response to the request to retrieve the address of the second edge computing entity (Agrawal, p. 42, “the apparatus includes at least one memory configured to implement a service registry and the at least one processor is configured to query the service registry that stores discovery criteria for the edge service.”), are communicated via the reference point provided between the edge entity that registers the other edge computing entities and the first edge computing entity (in combination with Sabella, p. 72, “The MEP 337 can also provide various services and/or functions, such as offering an environment where the MEAs 336 can discover, advertise, consume and offer MESs 337A (discussed infra), including MESs 337A available via other platforms when supported. The MEP 337 may be able to allow authorized MEAs 336 to communicate with 3P 310 servers located in external networks.” “Furthermore, the MEP 337 may communicate with other MEPs 337 of other MEHs 200 via the Mp3 reference point.”). Claim 12, Sabella-Agrwal-Yuzama teaches the method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the reference point provided between the edge entity that registers the other computing entities and the first edge computing entity is configured to support registration of edge computing entity information to the edge entity that registers the other edge computing entities (Sabella, p. 72, “The MEP 337 may host MESs 337A including the mobile edge services discussed infra, and provide access to persistent storage and time of day information. Furthermore, the MEP 337 may communicate with other MEPs 337 of other MEHs 200 via the Mp3 reference point.”). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xiong et al., US 20180270780 A1: teaches the mobile edge platform of the low-layer MEC server actively sends the registration information to the mobile edge platform of the high-layer MEC server. Sabella et al., US 20180183855 A1, teaches Each MEH 200 includes one or more MEC applications 336, a MEC platform 337, a MEC data plane 338A entity, and a Radio Network Information (RNI) Application Programming Interface (API) 340. Zhang et al., WO 2018113401 A1, teaches The source MEC platform sends the routing table information (including the settings related to the UE) to the destination MEC platform. These settings include, for example, UE IP address, uplink GTPU tunnel information, and the like. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICE L WINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm. 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, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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. /Patrice L Winder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 30, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 08, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 06, 2023
Response Filed
Dec 01, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
May 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 31, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 06, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 15, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598228
SYSTEM AND A METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593205
NETWORK SLICE-SPECIFIC AUTHENTICATION AND AUTHORIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587396
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RECOMMENDING NETWORK PROCESSING ROUTES WHEN CONDUCTING NETWORK OPERATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580812
COMMUNICATION CONTROL DEVICE, COMMUNICATION CONTROL METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580965
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING COMPLIANCE FAILURES BASED ON ESTIMATIONS FOR REMEDIATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
87%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+11.1%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 632 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