DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/472,485 filed on April 27, 2026. Claims 1-4 are cancelled. Claims 5, 9 and 12 are currently amended. Claims 5-12 are pending and are examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 27, 2026, has been entered.
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
The amendment to Claim 9 has overcome the rejection of Claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Final Office Action mailed January 27, 2026. The rejection of Claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered by the Examiner but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in this Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
The interpretation of the method Claims 5-8 as not requiring the performance of steps that are contingent on a condition that is not required by the claim to occur previously provided, which had been obviated by the amendment filed on November 13, 2025, is reintroduced herein based on the current amendment of Claim 5, which, under broadest reasonable interpretation, no longer requires the condition, “the AC requirement being unable to be fulfilled by the ECS1”, to occur.
Claim Interpretation
“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.” See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Method Claims 5-8 recite contingent limitations that are not required to be performed as they are subject to conditions that may not be met.
Regarding method Claim 5, the following limitations recite steps that are performed only upon certain conditions being met:
“determining, by the ECS1, whether the AC requirement is fulfilled by the ECS1; and
in response to the AC requirement being unable to be fulfilled by the ECS1, implementing a federated edge configuration process, which comprises:
contacting a Federated Edge Configuration Server (F-ECS) via the ECS1, wherein an Edge Service Provider (ESP) associated with the ECS1 has a service agreement with the F-ECS, and wherein the F-ECS maintains service agreements with other ECS provider networks;
searching, by the F-ECS, for another ECS provider network via an EDGE 20 reference point;
iteratively contacting additional ECS provider networks by the F-ECS until locating an ECSn with a suitable EDN that fulfills the AC requirement;
returning, by the F-ECS, an address of the ECSn with the suitable EDN, to the ECS1;
forwarding the service provisioning request from the EEC to the ECSn via the ECS1, wherein the ECSn sends suitable EDN information to the EEC via the EDGE 4 reference point;
transferring the EEC to the ECSn, wherein the EEC sends a request to a suitable Edge Enabler Server (EES) within the suitable EDN information provided by the ECSn via an EDGE 1 reference point; and
registering the EEC onto the suitable EES, and sending, by the EEC, an Edge Application Server (EAS) discovery request, which enables the EEC to establish a QoS session and data traffic with a suitable EAS to serve the service needs of the AC.
Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 5 does not require the actions “contacting a Federated Edge Configuration Server (F-ECS)”, “searching, by the F-ECS, for another ECS provider network”, “iteratively contacting additional ECS provider networks”, “returning, by the F-ECS, an address of the ECSn with the suitable EDN”, “forwarding the service provisioning request”, “transferring the EEC to the ECSn” and “registering the EEC onto the suitable EES” to be performed as they are operations of the federated edge configuration process which is subject to a condition, i.e., the AC requirement being unable to be fulfilled by the ECS1, that is not required by the claim to occur.
Furthermore, as best understood, the limitations of dependent Claims 6-8 are likewise not required under broadest reasonable interpretation as they recite additional actions or further define actions that are not required to occur when the AC requirement is fulfilled by the ECS1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 5-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yao et al., Pub. No. US 2024/0187303 A1, hereby “Yao”.
Regarding Claim 1, Yao discloses “A method for enabling multi-operator edge environment (Yao fig. 3 and paragraphs 7 and 121-122: a method for obtaining an edge service), the method comprising:
running an Application Client (AC) on a User Equipment (UE) and sending application context of the AC to an Edge Enabler Client (EEC) via an EDGE 5 reference point (Yao figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 114-118 and 133-134: an AC residing on a UE communicates with an EEC via an EDGE-5 interface to obtain EAS information – while not explicitly stated, it is readily understood by one of ordinary skill that the obtaining includes providing information about a requested application, i.e., application context, to the EEC);
adding EEC context via the EEC before sending a service provisioning request to an Edge Configuration Server (ECS) (Yao paragraphs 17, 118 and 132-134: a service provisioning request includes at least one of a PLMN identifier, an edge computing service provider (ECSP) identifier, and location information of the UE, i.e., EEC context – while not explicitly stated, it is readily understood by one of ordinary skill that this information is added to the service provisioning request by the EEC);
performing ECS discovery by sending the application context and the EEC context to a first Edge Configuration Server (ECS1) for service provisioning, wherein an address of the ECS1 is preconfigured with the EEC or provisioned by a Mobile Network Operator (MNO) through a fifth generation core network (5GC) via a 5GC procedure (Yao fig. 2 and paragraphs 3-4, 16, 115 and 117: the EEC obtains address information of a first ECS that has been preconfigured with the ECC or provided to the EEC by the network operator during session establishment);
sending the service provisioning request from the EEC to the ECS1 via an EDGE 4 reference point, wherein the ECS1 searches for an appropriate Edge Data Network (EDN) in order to support an AC requirement, which comprises service needs of the AC (Yao figs. 2 and 3 and paragraph 16, 115-118, 132-133 and 171: the first device, i.e., the EEC, sends a service provisioning request to the first ECS via the EDGE-4 interface in step S101);
determining, by the ECS1, whether the AC requirement is fulfilled by the ECS1 (Yao fig. 3 and paragraphs 12, 15, 114, 122-130 and 135: the first ECS determines whether the first ECS can or cannot provide the requested edge service to the UE)”.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the remaining limitations of Claim 5 are anticipated by Yao as they are contingent on a condition, determining that the AC requirement is unable to be fulfilled by the ECS1, that is not by the claim to occur. See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Regarding Claims 6-8, Yao anticipates the limitations of Claim 5.
Additionally, Yao anticipates the limitations of dependent Claims 6-8 as the limitations are dependent on the condition, i.e., determining that the AC requirement is unable to be fulfilled by the ECS1, that is not required by the claim to occur. See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Regarding Claim 12, Yao anticipates all of the limitations of Claim 5.
Additionally, Yao discloses “determining, by the ECS1, that the AC requirement is fulfilled by the ECS1 (Yao paragraphs 3 and 118: while not explicitly stated, a determination that the first ECS can provide the requested edge service to the UE is implied);
in response to the AC requirement being fulfilled by the EVS1, sending information associated with the EDN to the AC (Yao paragraphs 3 and 118: while not explicitly stated, providing the address information of the EES that can provide the requested edge service to the AC when the first ESC has an EES that can provide the requested service is implied).”
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao, in view of the paper authored by Patel et al., titled “Standardization aspects of Tactile applications on Multi-access Edge Computing”, hereby “Patel”.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Yao discloses all of the limitations of Claim 5.
Additionally, Yao discloses “A system adapted to perform the method for enabling multi-operator edge environment according to claim 5 (Yao figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 91-92 and 114: edge service architecture 200 implemented within network system architecture 100), wherein the system comprises:
the fifth generation core network (5GC) (Yao figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 93-94 and 116: system architecture 100 may comprise a 5G core network);
the Mobile Network Operator (MNO) that provides wireless network services (Yao figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 3-4 and 89-104: while not explicitly stated, it is readily understood by one of ordinary skill that the elements comprising network system architecture 100 are owned, managed and/or controlled by a mobile network operator);
a RAN-radio access network (RAN) that connects individual network devices through radio connections (Yao fig. 1 and paragraphs 93-94: a RAN);
an evolved Global System for Mobile communication (GSM) core network infrastructure (Yao paragraphs 89, 94 and 116: system architecture 100 may comprise a GSM system);” and
“User Equipment (UE) that allows a user access to network services having no access to the 5GC (Yao figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 104 and 114: a UE comprising an application client);
an EAS that is resident in an EDN for performing server functions (Yao fig. 2 and paragraphs 110 and 114: an EDN including an EES and a plurality of EAS);
a plurality of Edge Configuration Servers (ECS) (Yao figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 109, 114 and 121-123: a plurality of ECS); and
the Federated Edge Configuration Server (F-ECS) (Yao fig. 3 and paragraph 151: the federation control network element).”
However, while Yao discloses that the edge service network may be applied to machine-to-machine communication, device-to-device (D2D) networks, an Internet of Things (IoT) network or another network and that the devices connected to the network may include a wireless terminal in telemedicine (Yao paragraphs 90 and 104), Yao does not explicitly disclose wherein the system comprises “a haptic glove that provides simulation of tactile sensations”.
In the same field of endeavor, Patel discloses MEC environment in which a robotic hand is controlled using a haptic glove (Patel figs. 1 and 2, Abstract, § "I. INTRODUCTION" and "III. HAPTICS: TELESURGERY USE CASE”)": haptic glove (HG) communicates with robotic hand (RH) using a 5G-MEC network)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Yao to include a haptic glove and robotic hand in the edge service architecture as taught by Patel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine utilizing a haptic glove and robotic hand in the edge service architecture to provide the ultra-low latency required by telesurgery and other next generation Tactile Internet applications (Patel § "I. INTRODUCTION" and "III. HAPTICS: TELESURGERY USE CASE”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Yao and Patel discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9.
Additionally, Patel discloses “wherein the UE is implemented as a robotic hand (Patel figs. 1 and 2, Abstract, § "I. INTRODUCTION" and "III. HAPTICS: TELESURGERY USE CASE”)": a robotic hand (RH), which is a UE connected to the 5G-MEC network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Yao to include a haptic glove and robotic hand in the edge service architecture as taught by Patel for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Yao and Patel discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10.
Additionally, Patel discloses “wherein the haptic glove is operatively connected to one of a plurality of Edge Application Servers (EAS) for providing simulation of tactile sensations for the robotic hand (Patel figs. 1 and 2, Abstract, § "I. INTRODUCTION" and "III. HAPTICS: TELESURGERY USE CASE”)": a haptic glove (HG), which provides tactile sensations for the robotic hand).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Yao to include a haptic glove and robotic hand in the edge service architecture as taught by Patel for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
3GPP, the change request to TS 23.558 titled “CCR Architecture” discloses an architecture for enabling edge applications wherein a central repository (CCR) communicates with the ECS via the EDGE-20 reference point;
Shah, the article titled “3GPP EDGEAPP: Roaming, Federation and Edge Node Sharing” discloses a federation architecture wherein a UE is connected to its home PLMN but may use the edge services from the federated partner; and
Starsinic et al., Pub. No. US 2025/0142305 A1, discloses a method for edge configuration server (ECS) discovery wherein an ECS may return the ECS address configuration information for alternate ECS(s) that may be able to provision the EEC.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights