DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-21, received 21 January 2026. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-21 is as follows:
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 Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “determine, based on an identifier for the second WTRU, a device interface to be used…”
The examiner understands this claim to indicate “determine based on an entry point or URI (applicant’s specification [0154]) or communication information (applicant’s specification [0092-0095] an interface or means to communicate with a [second] device”.
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 1-13, 15-21 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the claims recite “determine, based on an identifier for the second WTRU, a device interface to be used to communicate with the second WTRU”, however, the examiner is unable to find support for said feature.
Claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-21 fail to cure the deficiencies of claims 1 and 8 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Giust (US 20210144057 A1, hereafter referred to as Giust).
Regarding claim 1, Giust teaches a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the first WTRU comprising:
a processor (Giust [Fig 2] teaches MEC system components running on a physical infrastructure), the processor configured to:
receive a first message from a network node (Giust [0072] teaches receiving configuration parameters, or a registration notification [0090-0091], from the MEO), wherein the first message from the network node indicates communication information to be used to communicate with a second WTRU (Giust [0072, 0073] teaches the parameters include a MEC platform’s address/URI associated to Tenant B), and wherein the communication information indicates a list of one or more device interfaces associated with an application (Giust [0091] teaches a list of other MEC platforms address or URI);
determine, based on an identifier for the second WTRU, a device interface to be used to communicate with the second WTRU (Giust [0093, 0073] teaches determining a peer platform the first WTRU is authorized to communicate with and starting an authentication processes), wherein the second WTRU is associated with the application (Giust [0019] teaches application instances which interact with each other via directed communication established between MEC platforms), and wherein the device interface is from the one or more device interfaces (Giust [0073] teaches upon receiving the address or URI of a peer platform starting authentication with it);
send a first message to the second WTRU using the determined device interface, wherein the first message to the second WTRU indicates a service discovery request (Giust [0094, 0075]);
receive a second message from the second WTRU, wherein the second message from the second WTRU indicates a service provided by the second WTRU and indicates a service identifier (Giust [0075, 0094] discloses the discovery response contains additional parameters including services and application URIs that can be accessed by the requesting platform), wherein the service identifier is associated with the service (Giust [0094] teaches a URI for the service and applications); and
send a third message to the second WTRU, wherein the third message to the second WTRU indicates the service identifier, and wherein the third message includes data for the service (Giust [0006] teaches establishing a communication link with the MEC platform and routing traffic between applications [0078]).
Regarding claim 2, Giust teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Giust teaches the first WTRU wherein the communication information is based on registration information associated with the second WTRU (Giust [0090-0091] teaches another MEC platform registering whereby a notification including a list of exposed services and applications are provide to the first MEC platform).
Regarding claim 3, Giust teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Giust teaches the first WTRU wherein the identifier is used to access the service, and wherein the identifier is a uniform resource identifier (URI) (Giust [0091] teaches obtaining a list of MEC platforms, services and applications and connecting with the MEC platform and associated service [0093-0094]).
Regarding claim 4, Giust teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Giust teaches the first WTRU wherein the processor is further configured to generate a list of available WTRUs using the first message from the network node, wherein the list of available WTRUs is associated with the communication information (Giust [0091] teaches a list of other MEC platforms including URI and exposed services and applications), and wherein the list of available WTRUs includes the second WTRU (Giust [0093] teaches using the list of discovered MEC platforms to connect against those platforms that it is authorized to communicate with).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites a method which is executed or implemented by the device as set forth above regarding claim 1. Giust teaches functionality executed or implemented by the device. Therefore, claim 8 does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1.
As such, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 9-11, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 2-4.
Therefore, claims 9-11 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 2-4.
Regarding claims 18-19, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 3-4.
Therefore, claims 18-19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 3-4.
Regarding claims 20-21, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 3-4.
Therefore, claims 20-21 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 3-4.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 6-7, 13, 15, 16, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giust (US 20210144057 A1, hereafter referred to as Giust) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sabella et al (US 20220086218 A1, hereafter referred to as Sabella).
Regarding claim 6, Giust teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Giust does not explicitly teach the first WTRU wherein a location of the first WTRU is associated with a geographic area.
Sabella, in an analogous art, teaches the first WTRU wherein a location of the first WTRU is associated with a geographic area (Sabella [0206] teaches utilizing a UE’s location to provide a required service provisioning configuration, updated a configuration based on a new location [0208] and provide location-related information [0253]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Giust in view of Sabella in order to configure a location of the first WTRU is associated with a geographic area, as taught by Sabella.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order enable the MEC platform or one or more MEC apps to provide location-based recommendations based on a current location (Sabella [0253]).
Regarding claim 7, Giust teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Giust teaches the first WTRU wherein the first WTRU is associated with an Edge Multi-access Edge Computing (EMEC) system (Giust [0063-0064] teaches a MEC provider provisioning a MEC system with identifiers and addresses of MEC platforms.
However, Giust does not explicitly teach wherein the second WTRU is associated with a Constrained Multi-access Edge Computing System (CMEC).
Sabella, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the second WTRU is associated with a Constrained Multi-access Edge Computing System (CMEC) (Sabella [0263] teaches a MEC system whereby a MEO selects hosts for application instantiation based on constraints).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Giust in view of Sabella in order to configure a location of the second WTRU be associated with a Constrained Multi-access Edge Computing System (CMEC), as taught by Sabella.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order enable the MEC platform or one or more MEC apps to provide location-based recommendations based on a current location (Sabella [0253]).
Regarding claims 13 and 16, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 6-7.
Therefore, claims 13 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 6-7.
Regarding claim 15, Giust teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Giust does not explicitly teach wherein a location of the second WTRU is associated with a geographic area.
Sabella, in an analogous art, teaches a location of the second WTRU is associated with a geographic area (Sabella [0206] teaches utilizing a UE’s location to provide a required service provisioning configuration, updated a configuration based on a new location [0208] and provide location-related information [0253]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Giust in view of Sabella in order to configure a location of the second WTRU be associated with a geographic area, as taught by Sabella.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order enable the MEC platform or one or more MEC apps to provide location-based recommendations based on a current location (Sabella [0253]).
Regarding claim 17, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 15.
Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 Rejection, the applicant argues:
“We disagree with the rejection. However, for clarity, we have amended claims 1 and 8 such that they now recite "determin[ing], based on an identifier for the second WTRU, a device interface to be used to communicate with the second WTRU, wherein the second WTRU is associated with the application, and wherein the device interface is from the one or more device interfaces." This amended feature is supported by at least paragraph [0163]-[0170], Table 2, and FIG. 14 of the Specification.” Remarks pg 6
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification [0163-0170] does not teach, mention or suggest determining a specific or particular interface based on an identifier. Applicant’s specification [0163-0170] teaches receiving a list (of available CMEC’s in a vicinity) and determining an interface to which discovery messages are sent. The applicant attests the determination is made by the identifier, however, there is no support for such a claim. Moreover, the applicant argues “Table 2…pairs the second WTRU’s identifier…with the interface details”. However, Table 2 also pairs the second WTRU’s interface usage details, transport types and authentication information with the interface details but there is no teaching, mention or suggestion of how any of the details of table 2 are used to determine a particular interface. Moreover, 0165, teaches the EMEC may process the list and start sending one or more discovery messages to the CMECs such that the determination of the interface is not positively associated with an identifier.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“However, Giust neither discloses nor suggests such a feature. Instead, Giust merely discloses receiving an authorized list of uniform resource identifiers (URIs) for multi-access edge computing (MEC) platforms.
In Giust, the device receives a list of already-authorized MEC platform URIs and attempts to establish a connection using that list (e.g., trying the first URI and then proceeding through the list if needed). Giust does not disclose the use of an identifier to select a particular URI or a corresponding device interface from the list. So, rather than determining a specific device interface based on an identifier, Giust merely uses the authorized URI list as candidate connection endpoints.9 Thus, Giust does not disclose or suggest "determin[ing], based on an identifier for the second WTRU, a device interface to be used to communicate with the second WTRU, wherein the second WTRU is associated with the application, and wherein the device interface is from the one or more device interfaces," as recited in amended claim 1.” Remarks pg 7
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the claim interpretation and based upon broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the applicant’s specification, the examiner understands the claimed feature “determine, based on an identifier for the second WTRU, a device interface to be used to communicate with the second WTRU, wherein the second WTRU is associated with the application, and wherein the device interface is from the one or more device interfaces” to indicate “determine, based on an entry point or URI (applicant’s specification [0154] teaches the manager providing available CMEC and entry point information including URIs), an interface or means to communicate with a device, wherein the device is associated with an application and wherein the interface or means to communicate is associated with a [received] information (applicant’s specification [0163] teaches receiving CMEC information and transmitting discovery messages based on the received information [0165])”.
Giust teaches determine, based on an entry point or URI , an interface or means to communicate with a device (Giust [0072-0073] teaches receiving configuration parameters including an address/URI associated with a second device whereby upon receiving said address/URI communication is initiated), wherein the device is associated with an application (Giust [0019] teaches the communication permits application instances to interact with each other) and wherein the interface or means to communicate is associated with a [received] information (Giust [0072] teaches providing the configuration parameters including the address/URI used to initiate communication [0073]).
Moreover, “select a particular URI or a corresponding device interface from the list” or “determining a specific device interface based on the identifier” is not supported, as set forth in the 112 rejection. In traversing the 112 rejection the applicant provides 0163-0170 as support. However, 0163-0170, as identified by the applicant (remarks pg 6), supports receiving a list and processing the list to start sending discovery messages to CMEC. There is no positive teaching, mention or suggestion “a particular URI or a corresponding device interface” or “a specific device interface” is selected, identified or determined based on an identifier.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“Because Giust does not disclose or suggest this feature of independent claim 1, claim 1 is patentable in view of Giust.” Remarks pg 7
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above responsive to applicant’s arguments pertaining to claim 1.
Regarding the dependent claims, applicant argues:
“Consequently, the rejections of dependent claims 6-7, 13, and 15-17 under § 103, which rely on Giust for this base feature, also cannot be sustained. Claim 8 recites features similar to claim 1; therefore, claim 8 and its dependents are also patentable. Accordingly, the Applicant requests that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 be reconsidered and withdrawn.” Remarks pg 7-8
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above regarding independent claim 1 of which claim 8 has similar arguments and of which the dependent claims inherit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, 12 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights