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 .
Examiner Note
Examiner contacted Applicant representative on June 2nd, 2026 discussing the content of the claims for speedy prosecution but no agreement has been reached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Applicant is claiming 3GPP core network entity in claim 1,2, 5 and 6. However, it is not clear what part of the 3GPP core network entity applicant is trying to claim. Is he trying to claim location information server of the core network or some other network server. Dependent claims do not overcome the deficiency of the independent claims as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, 3-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 1 and 5 recites limitation, “receiving, from an edge enabler client (EEC) device, an EEC registration request message comprising a first mobility indication, wherein the first mobility indication indicates whether the EEC device supports mobility or not; and determining whether to subscribe to an 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) core network entity for at least one of UE location information or UE location analytics information, based on the first mobility indication”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites
receiving, from an edge enabler client (EEC) device, an EEC registration request message comprising a first mobility indication; and determining whether to subscribe to an 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) core network entity for at least one of UE location information or UE location analytics information, based on the first mobility indication recited in the claim a claim to collecting which can be refer to as receiving step and comparing which can be refer to as determining step of known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011) recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of collecting and comparing, etc. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims 3-4, 7-10 do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims. However, if applicant add the limitation from claim 2 or 6 i.e., “receiving, from the EEC device, an EEC registration update request message comprising a second mobility indication; determining whether the second mobility indication indicates the EEC device supports mobility; in case that the second mobility indication indicates that the EEC device supports mobility, subscribing to an 3GPP core network entity for at least one of UE location information and UE location analytics information, storing the location information in an EEC context, and sending a EEC update registration response message to the EEC device; and in case that the second mobility indication indicates that the EEC device does not support mobility, performing one-time location fetch for the EEC device, storing the location information in memory of the EES, and sending a EEC update registration response message to the EEC device” it will overcome the rejection.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP TS 23.558 v17.2.0 (2021-12) 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Architecture for enabling Edge Applications; (Release 17)
Regarding Claim 1, 3GPP teaches a method performed by an edge enabler server (EES) in an edge network (Fig. 8.5.2.3.4-1 EAS discovery subscription update), the method comprising:
receiving, from an edge enabler client (EEC) device an EEC registration request message comprising a first mobility indication wherein the first mobility indication indicates whether the EEC device supports mobility or not (Page 72 Sec 8.5.2.3.4 Subscription update and also see Sec 8.5.2.3.5 unsubscribe Step 1, The EEC sends an EAS discovery subscription update request to the EES. The EAS discovery subscription update request i.e., EEC registration request message that includes the security credentials and the subscription identifier or EAS discovery unsubscribe request to the EES refer to as support mobility or not. It may also include EAS discovery filters, EAS dynamic information filters and/or proposed expiration time for the updated subscription)
determining whether to subscribe to an 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) core network entity for at least one of UE location information or UE location analytics information, based on the first mobility indication (Page 72 Sec 8.5.2.3.4 Subscription update and also see Sec 8.5.2.3.5 unsubscribe Step 2, Upon receiving the request from the EEC, the EES checks if the EEC is authorized to update the subscription information i.e., determining whether to subscribe. The EES may utilize the capabilities (e.g. UE location) of the 3GPP core network as specified in clause 8.10.3 i.e., 3GPP core network entity for at least one of the UE location information. If the request is authorized, the EES updated the stored subscription for EAS discovery i.e., based on first mobility indication).
Regarding Claim 3, 3GPP teaches wherein the first mobility indication indicates at least one of following mobility: fixed, temporary fixed or mobile (Page 74 Table 8.5.3.2-1 EAS discovery request UE location and also see clause 7.3.2).
Regarding Claim 4, 3GPP teaches wherein the EEC registration request message further comprises security credentials and a proposed expiration time Page 72 Sec 8.5.2.3.4 Subscription update Step 1).
Regarding Claim 5, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 8, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 23.558 v17.2.0 (2021-12) 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Architecture for enabling Edge Applications; (Release 17) in view of Takakura et al. Pub. No. US 20240244033 A1.
Regarding Claim 9, 3GPP does not specifically teach determining to perform one time location fetch for the EEC device, in case that the first mobility indication indicates that the EEC device does not support mobility.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takakura teaches that If the response message in step 602 contains a failure cause (YES in step 603), the procedure proceeds to step 605. If there remains an EES configured in the UE or ME for which an EEC registration has not been attempted (NO in step 605), the EEC 2 selects another EES different from the first server (step 606) and returns to step 601 to attempt an EEC registration for that other EES i.e., determining to perform one time location fetch for the EEC device, in case that the first mobility indication indicates that the EEC device does not support mobility (Para 95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of 3GPP with the method of Takakura so as to establish one or more connections with one or more EESs deployed in the EDN (See Takakura Para 5).
Regarding Claim 10, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and overcoming 35 USC 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art reference fail to teach the limitation of “wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the EEC device, an EEC registration update request message comprising a second mobility indication; determining whether the second mobility indication indicates the EEC device supports mobility; in case that the second mobility indication indicates that the EEC device supports mobility, subscribing to an 3GPP core network entity for at least one of UE location information and UE location analytics information, storing the location information in an EEC context, and sending a EEC update registration response message to the EEC device; and in case that the second mobility indication indicates that the EEC device does not support mobility, performing one-time location fetch for the EEC device, storing the location information in memory of the EES, and sending a EEC update registration response message to the EEC device”. These limitation in combination of other elements are neither found nor disclosed in prior art as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roy et al. Pub. No. US 20250247748 A1 - ACR SELECTION AND COORDINATION
Jost et al. Pub. No. US 20250227099 A1 - Enhanced Authentication and Authorization of Servers and Clients in Edge Computing
Xu Pub. No. US 20240015529 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR USER PLANE PATH MANAGEMENT
Kim et al. Pub. No. US 20230047503 A1 - APPLICATION CLIENT AND EDGE APPLICATION SERVER DISCOVERY WITH SERVICE AUTHORIZATION AND LOCATION SERVICE
EP 3944648 B1 - METHOD AND DEVICE FOR MANAGING IDENTIFIER OF UE IN EDGE COMPUTING SERVICE
CN 115136731 B - Device and method for providing service according to wireless communication network type in edge computing system
EP 4210360 A1 - APPLICATION CONTEXT MIGRATION METHOD AND DEVICE
EP 4207820 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DYNAMICALLY TRIGGERING INSTANTIATION OF EDGE APPLICATION SERVER
EP 4185010 A1 - METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ACCESSING LOCAL NETWORK
WO 2022175329 A1 - AUTHENTICATION AND AUTHORIZATION OF SERVERS AND CLIENTS IN EDGE COMPUTING
3GPP TSG-SA6 Meeting #46-e S6-212782 Online, , 15th Nov 2021 - 23rd Nov 2021 was S6-212516
3GPP TSG-SA WG6 Meeting #43-e S6-211376 e-meeting, 24th May – 2nd June 2021 (revision of S6-211175)
Latency Reduction in 5G MEC during Context switchover using Learning-to-Rank algorithms on Edge Application Servers 2021
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights