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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 13-27 are pending in this Office Action.
Claim 18-21 are elected without traverse, as explained below.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 18-27 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment on 01/09/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I: Claims 13-17, drawn to receiving a message from an Edge Enabler Client (EEC) and sending a response to the EEC, H04L61/5046.
Group II: Claims 18-21, drawn to sending a message to an Edge Enabler Server (EES) and receiving a response from the EES, H04L61/5076.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of Edge Application Server (EAS), this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Background of US 20240244033, “AAPA”).
The technical feature of Edge Application Server (EAS) was known in the art at the time of the effective filing.
AAPA discloses, in the background of the invention, “According to the EDGEAPP architecture, edge applications provided by Edge Application Servers (EASs) are provided to ACs in a UE by an Edge Configuration Server (ECS) ….”
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 18-21 in the reply filed on 08/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from consideration. The response is not found persuasive because the applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a technical relationship between claim 13 (Group 1) and claim 18 (Group Il) involving the corresponding special technical features: Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a method of an Edge Enabler Server (EES) and recites "when the matching EAS is not identified, rejecting the message by sending a response to the EEC with a status code set to 404 Not Found". Meanwhile, claim 18 is directed to a method of an Edge Enabler Client (EEC), recites "when the matching EAS is not identified, receiving a response for rejecting the message with a status code set to 404 Not Found from the EES".
The applicant basically copy pastes the whole claim from each of the groups and states that there is a technical relationship between them. This is merely an allegation that the present application satisfies the requirement of unity of invention under PCT Rule 13.1 because there is a technical relationship between claim 13 (Group 1) and claim 18 (Group Il) involving the corresponding special technical features; however, the applicant does not provide any evidence to prove his assertion. Furthermore, the applicant misrepresents the examiner’s restriction. The applicant clearly mischaracterizes the actual restriction based on mere allegations that AAPA does not disclose the alleged technical features.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1: Group I: Claims 13-17, drawn to receiving a message from an Edge Enabler Client (EEC) and sending a response to the EEC, H04L61/5046. Group II: Claims 18-21, drawn to sending a message to an Edge Enabler Server (EES) and receiving a response from the EES, H04L61/5076.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of Edge Application Server (EAS), this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Background of US 20240244033, “AAPA”). The technical feature of Edge Application Server (EAS) was known in the art at the time of the effective filing.AAPA discloses, in the background of the invention, “According to the EDGEAPP architecture, edge applications provided by Edge Application Servers (EASs) are provided to ACs in a UE by an Edge Configuration Server (ECS) ….”
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Also, the applicant has forfeited the right to petition from the requirement for restriction, because the applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out all errors to be relied upon in the petition in a timely filed traverse (MPEP 818.01(c)). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The applicant’s representative states, on page 6 of the remarks, “Without commenting on or acquiescing to the merits of the objection, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this objection in view of the amendments to the title.” However, the applicant’s representative did not file the change to the title.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The formal drawings received on 10/27/2023 have been entered.
Contingent Limitation
MPEP 2111.04(II) states:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
In view of MPEP 2111.04(II):
In claim 18, only the limitation “sending, by the EEC, an EEC registration message to an Edge Enabler Server (EES), the EEC registration request message comprising at least one application client profile (AC profile), the EEC registration request message causing the EES to identify a matching Edge Application Server (EAS) associated with the at least one AC profile, and” need to be disclosed by the cited prior art because steps recited after the aforementioned limitations are contingent and they are neither required to be executed nor disclosed by the cited prior art. The step of “in a case where the EES has not identified the matching EAS for even one AC profile, receiving, by the EEC, a response rejecting the EEC registration request message with a status code set to 404 Not Found from the EES” are neither required to be executed nor disclosed by the cited prior art.
In claims 19-22, the steps are neither required to be executed nor disclosed by the cited prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 23.558, V1.3.0 (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Architecture for enabling Edge Applications; (Release 17), January 2021) in view of 3GPP TSG-CT WG4 Meeting #98e (Definition of error RESOURCE_CONTEXT_NOT_FOUND"; 02nd – 12th June 2020).
18, 23. 3GPP TS 23.558, V1.3.0 teaches:
A method of operating an Edge Enabler Client (EEC), the method comprising: – on pages 61-122 (EAS discovery enables the EEC to obtain information about available EASs of interest.)
sending, by the EEC, an EEC registration message to an Edge Enabler Server (EES), the EEC registration request message comprising at least one application client profile (AC profile), – on pages 61-122 (The EEC sends EEC registration request to the EES. Table 8.4.2.3.2-1 describes information elements in the EEC registration request from the EEC to the EES. Profiles of ACs for which the EEC provides edge enabling services. AC Profiles are further described in Table 8.2.2-1. An AC Profile includes information about AC used to determine services and service characteristics required.)
the EEC registration request message causing the EES to identify a matching Edge Application Server (EAS) associated with the at least one AC profile, and – on pages 61-122 (The EES determines the matching AC information corresponding to the filter provided and composes a result. AC profile containing parameters used to determine matching EAS. Upon receiving the request, the target EES may trigger the EAS management system to instantiate the target EAS that matches with EAS discovery filter IEs (e.g. AC ID) as in clause 8.11.)
in a case where the EES has not identified the matching EAS for even one AC profile, receiving, by the EEC, a response rejecting the EEC registration request message with a status code set to 404 Not Found from the EES. – on pages 61-122 (Upon receiving the EAS discovery request with EAS discovery filter from the EEC or the source EES during the procedures for EAS discovery or application context relocation, the EES may fail to discover and select the EAS that matches the UE location and the requesting application characteristics specified in table 8.5.3.2-2 due to no EAS is available or instantiated. If the EES is unable to determine the EAS information using the inputs in the EAS discovery request, UE-specific service information at the EES or the ECSP policy, the EES shall reject the service provisioning request and respond with an appropriate failure cause.)
3GPP TS 23.558, V1.3.0 does not explicitly teach:
the message with a status code set to 404 Not Found.
However, 3GPP TSG-CT WG4 Meeting #98e teaches:
the message with a status code set to 404 Not Found – on pages 1-6 (If the specified target resource does not exist, the NF shall reject the HTTP method with the HTTP status code "404 Not Found".)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify 3GPP TS 23.558, V1.3.0 with 3GPP TSG-CT WG4 Meeting #98e to include the message with a status code set to 404 Not Found, as taught by 3GPP TS 23.558, V1.3.0, on pages 61-122, to configure the EEC with information about available Edge Computing services, based on the hosting UEs location, service requirements, service preferences and connectivity.
19, 24. The method according to claim 18, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
3GPP TS 23.558, V1.3.0 teaches:
wherein the matching EAS suffices all information included in a minimum required service Key Performance Indicator (KPI). – on pages 61-122 (Depending on the EAS discovery filters received in the EAS discovery request, the response may include additional information regarding matched capabilities, e.g. service permissions levels, KPIs, AC locations(s) that the EASs can support, etc.)
20, 25. The method according to claim 18, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
3GPP TSG-CT WG4 Meeting #98e further teaches:
wherein the response includes a cause indicating an application error in the status code. – on pages 1-6 (If the request is rejected because of an error in an URI before the first variable part of an "apiSpecificResourceUriPart", the "404 Not Found" HTTP status code may be sent without "ProblemDetails" data structure indicating protocol or application error.)
21, 26. The method according to claim 20, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
3GPP TSG-CT WG4 Meeting #98e further teaches:
wherein the application error is RESOURCE_NOT_FOUND. – on pages 1-6 (SUBSCRIPTION_NOT_FOUND)
22. The method according to claim 18,
3GPP TS 23.558, V1.3.0 teaches:
wherein in the case where the EES has not identified the matching EAS for the even one AC Profile, the receiving the response rejecting the EEC registration request message with the status code set to 404 Not Found comprises: receiving, by the EEC, the response rejecting the EEC registration request message with the status code set to 404 Not Found from the EES in the case that the EES has not identified the matching EAS for any of the at least one AC Profile. – on pages 61-122 (Upon receiving the EAS discovery request with EAS discovery filter from the EEC or the source EES during the procedures for EAS discovery or application context relocation, the EES may fail to discover and select the EAS that matches the UE location and the requesting application characteristics specified in table 8.5.3.2-2 due to no EAS is available or instantiated. If the EES is unable to determine the EAS information using the inputs in the EAS discovery request, UE-specific service information at the EES or the ECSP policy, the EES shall reject the service provisioning request and respond with an appropriate failure cause.)
27. The EEC according to claim 23,
3GPP TS 23.558, V1.3.0 teaches:
wherein the case where the EES has not identified the matching EAS for the even one AC Profile is equivalent to a case where the EES has not identified the matching EAS for any of the at least one AC Profile. – on pages 61-122 (Upon receiving the EAS discovery request with EAS discovery filter from the EEC or the source EES during the procedures for EAS discovery or application context relocation, the EES may fail to discover and select the EAS that matches the UE location and the requesting application characteristics specified in table 8.5.3.2-2 due to no EAS is available or instantiated. If the EES is unable to determine the EAS information using the inputs in the EAS discovery request, UE-specific service information at the EES or the ECSP policy, the EES shall reject the service provisioning request and respond with an appropriate failure cause.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-7734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M..
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571)272-7304. 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.
/MUHAMMAD RAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449