DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Amendment filed on 12/26/2025. Claims 1-32 are previously canceled. Claims 33-54 remain pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (pg. 11), filed on 12/26/2025, with respect to Double Patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Terminal Disclaimers filed. The Double Patenting rejections of claims 33-54 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (pg. 12-14), filed on 12/26/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 33 and 41 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “authenticating the server via the first connection based on a server certificate” as Applicant’s claim 33 (and similarly claim 41) recites. However, Houston et al. (US 2014/0259109 A1) discloses authenticating and selecting edge server by exchanging authentication credentials (Houston: [0029]-[0035]). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, exchanged authentical credentials teaches the server certificate, and selecting edge server based on exchanged authentication credentials teaches authenticating the server.
Applicant’s arguments (pg. 14-15), filed on 12/26/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 33 and 41 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “the initial access credential includes or is based on one or more of an indication that the client is a legitimate client, a client type associated with the client and an identifier of the client” as Applicant’s claim 33 (and similarly claim 41) recites. However, Lee et al. (US 2020/0359218 A1) discloses credential based on EEC identifier derived from identifier of subscriber (Lee: [0201], [0219]), which teaches the initial access credential based on identifier of the client under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments (pg. 15-16), filed on 12/26/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 33 and 41 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “the initial access credential and the updated access credential include or are based on one or more of the following: an indication that the client is a legitimate client; and a client type associated with the client” as Applicant’s claim 50 (and similarly claim 54) recites. However, Houston et al. (US 2014/0259109 A1) discloses exchanging authentication credentials (Houston: [0029]-[0035]) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0359218 A1) discloses credential based on EEC identifier derived from identifier of manufacturer (Lee: [0201], [0219]), which teach the access credentials based on client type associated with the client in combination under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Therefore, the prior art of record teaches the amended claim limitations in combination. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner suggests Applicant to consider further clarifying the server certificate and exactly what authenticating the server entails in order to clearly overcome the current rejections.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 12/26/2025 has been entered.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 33, 38-41, and 50-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston et al. (US 2014/0259109 A1, hereinafter “Houston”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0359218 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 33 (and similarly claims 41, 50, and 54), Houston discloses:
A method for a client in an edge data network, the method comprising:
obtaining an initial access credential before accessing the edge data network (obtaining authentication credentials before establishing connection with edge server, Houston: [0064]);
establishing a first connection with a server of the edge data network based on transport layer security (TLS) (establishing connection with edge server using TLS, Houston: [0067]);
authenticating the server via the first connection based on a server certificate (authenticating and selecting edge server by exchanging authentication credentials, Houston: [0029]-[0035]); and
providing the initial access credential to the server, via the first connection, for authentication of the client (exchanging authentication credentials for authentication of client device, Houston: [0029]-[0035]).
Houston does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the initial access credential includes or is based on one or more of an indication that the client is a legitimate client, a client type associated with the client and an identifier of the client.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches:
wherein the initial access credential includes or is based on one or more of an indication that the client is a legitimate client, a client type associated with the client and an identifier of the client (provisioning request message including credential based on EEC identifier, Lee: [0201], [0219]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Houston in view of Lee in order to further modify the method of establishing connection with edge server using TLS based on exchanged authentication credentials from the teachings of Houston with the method of provisioning request message including credential based on EEC identifier from the teachings of Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would have improved efficiency of authentication procedure (Lee: [0017]).
Regarding claim 38-40 and 51-53, they do not teach or further define over the teachings of claim 33. Therefore, claims 38-40 and 51-53 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 33 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm EST.
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 J. Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights