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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Applicant's Amendment filed 7/09/2026. Applicant has amended claims 39, 46, 49, 58, and 61, cancelled claims 1-38, 40-43, 48, 50, 52-57, 59-60, and 62-64, and added claims 65-68. Currently, claims 39, 44-47, 49, 51, 58, 61, and 65-68 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to the claims to place independent claims 39, 46, 58, and 61 in condition for allowance, per indication of the Non Final Office Action sent on 4/24/2026. However, Examiner has found some discrepancies in such amendments, hereby addressed in the 35 USC 112 rejection section below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 39, 46, 58, 61 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 39 (also applicable to claim 58), the limitation reading “wherein one or more of the following applies: the UE ID is received from the first server in a service provisioning response, which does not include an access token for the second server; and the UE ID is sent to the second server in a request that does not include an access token for the second server” is unclear as to what the inventor regards as the invention. Examiner acknowledges that this amendment has been suggested by the Examiner’s previous office action, however, upon further consideration, this amendment puts the claim, as a whole, to be in contrary to what the specification discloses about this embodiment of the invention. For instance, in paragraph [0117], the specification discloses that Fig. 8 is an example of the embodiment. Figure 8 discloses that the UE ID is received by response sent by the first server, ECS 820, in which clearly the access token is not included in such response. However, the request sent by the client to the second server, EES 830, also does not include the access token. Therefore, it seems that both instances apply (i.e. access token is not included in the response and neither is the access token included in the request). The underlined term above only requires “one of the following to apply”. In view of the disclosure, the claim as a whole, as it has been amended, is in contrast to what is being depicted in Fig. 8. It is also of importance to note that the problem this invention is trying to address is focused on how the UE receives the UE ID. Therefore, both limitations must apply because if limitation “the UE ID is sent to the second server in a request that does not include an access token for the second server” is the only limitation applied to the claimed invention, then the problem persists as to how the UE ID is being provided to the client from the first server in order for the second server to authenticate the UE ID. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 46 (also applicable to claim 61), the limitation reading “wherein the UE ID is sent to the client in one of the following: an access token for the second server; or a service provisioning response, which does not include an access token for the second server.” is unclear as to what the inventor regards as the invention. Examiner acknowledges that this amendment has been suggested by the Examiner’s previous office action, however, upon further consideration, this amendment puts the claim, as a whole, to be in contrary to what the specification discloses is the problem solved in this invention. The problem this invention is trying to address is focused on how the UE receives the UE ID. Therefore, both limitations must apply, rather than “one of the following” because if limitation “an access token for the second server” is the only limitation applied to the claimed invention, then the problem persists as to how the UE ID is being provided to the client from the first server in order for the second server to authenticate the UE ID. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39, 46, 58, 61 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Prior art of record teaches:
*3GPP TR 33.839 V17.1.0 (NPL: Study on Security Aspects of Enhancement of Support for Edge Computing in the 5GCore (5GC)) teaches potential security requirements are provided and possible security enhancements to 5GS and edge application architecture are proposed that meet these security requirements
*3GPP TS 29.503 V15.9.0 (NPL: United Data Management Services) teaches the stage 3 protocol and data model for the Nudm Service Based Interface. It provides stage 3 protocol definitions and message flows, and specifies the API for each service offered by the UDM.
(*) Indicates reference provided by Applicant’s IDS.
However, none of the prior art of record teach by themselves or in any combination nor would have anticipated nor render obvious by combination the claimed invention of the present invention at or before the time it was filed. The prior art of record is silent on “during or after authentication and/or authorization of the client by a first server in the edge data network, receiving from the first server an identifier (UE ID) of a user equipment that hosts the client; and sending the UE ID to a second server in the edge data network, during authentication and/or authorization of the client by the second server wherein the UE ID is received from the first server in a service provisioning response, which does not include an access token for the second server; and the UE ID is sent to the second server in a request that does not include an access token for the second server”, in combination with all other claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
(1) Guo et al. (US 11,889,308 B2) teaches a multi-access edge computing (MEC)-KEY ID Derivation in authentication between UE and edge servers.
(2) Bicer (US 9,015,813 B2) teaches systems and methods for authentication, verification, and payments.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZBETH TORRES-DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-272-1787. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00a-4:30p.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reached on 571-270-5440. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIZBETH TORRES-DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights