Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 04/28/2026. Claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 have been amended. Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17 and 19-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-34 have been added as new claims. Claims 1, 8, 11, 18 and 21-34 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “receiving, from an edge enabler client (EEC), an edge application server (EAS) discovery request …; selecting a common EAS associated with the application group ID …; and transmitting to the EEC, an EAS discovery response …”, are directed to generic computer module interfacing. Claims 8 and 18 recite “transmitting to an edge enabler server (EES) an edge application server (EAS) discovery request …; and receiving, from the EES, an EAS discovery response …”, are also directed to generic computer module interfacing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as follows:
The limitations of “receiving, from an edge enabler client (EEC), an edge application server (EAS) discovery request …; selecting a common EAS associated with the application group ID …; and transmitting to the EEC, an EAS discovery response …”, of claims 1 and 11 and the limitations of “transmitting to an edge enabler server (EES) an edge application server (EAS) discovery request …; and receiving, from the EES, an EAS discovery response …” of claims 8 and 18, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components (input and output between associated network entities/services). That is, other than reciting “a transceiver and at least one processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 11 and 18 only recite using “a transceiver and at least one processor” to perform the transmitting/receiving and selecting steps. The “transceiver and at least one processor” in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a transceiver and at least one processor” to perform the transmitting/receiving and selecting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 21-34 do not recite limitations which amount to significantly more to overcome the deficiency of independent claims 1, 8, 11 and 18, respectively. Likewise, claims 21-27, while reciting method claims, and claims 28-34, while reciting EES and ECS (apparatus) claims, nevertheless are technically similar claims, and therefore, also describe an abstract idea of transmitting, receiving and selecting data. Taken alone, or in ordered combination, none of the additional elements amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claims are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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)(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.
5. Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, 21, 27-28 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gazda et al. (US 2025/0106100 A1), hereinafter “Gazda”.
6. As to claim 1, Gazda discloses a method performed by an edge enabler server (EES) in a mobile edge computing system, the method comprising:
receiving, from an edge enabler client (EEC), an edge application server (EAS) discovery request including an application group identifier (ID) ([0106]: the EEC 210 may process and send an EAS discovery request to an EES 208; [0153]: the EAS discovery request may contain an AVSID (also be called as “Application Vertical Group Identifier”, see TABLE 1) that EEC 210 may try to discover);
selecting a common EAS associated with the application group ID, wherein the EAS discovery request includes at least one of an EAS bundle ID or a list of EAS IDs ([0106-0107]: the EES 208 may perform a lookup of registered EASs matching EAS requirements including finding an EAS(s) that match(es) the requested AVSID and selects only EAS(s) associated with the AVSID); and
transmitting, to the EEC, an EAS discovery response including at least one EAS profile associated with the common EAS, wherein the at least one EAS profile includes at least one of: information related to an EAS bundle, at least one EAS bundle requirement, or a main EAS ID in the EAS bundle ([0108]: EES 208 responds to the EEC 210 with the selected EAS 204 endpoint(s) and the AVSID(s) that the EAS(s) is serving in an enhanced Service Session Context in the EEC Context; [0153]: the EEC may obtain a list of EASs that meet the EEC criteria specified in the EAS discovery request).
7. As to claim 8, claim 8 recites an EEC method claim comprising similar limitations as of the EES method claim 1 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
8. As to claims 11 and 18, claims 11 and 18 recite limitations as of method claims 1 and 8 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
9. As to claim 21, Gazda teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the application group ID is configured to identify a group of user equipments (UEs) using a same application ([0166]: setting up server instances and a multi-user group identifier for a common application).
10. As to claims 27-28 and 34, claims 27-28 and 34 recite similar limitations as of method claim 21 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 22-24 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gazda, in view of by QUALCOMM INC., Pseudo-CR on Support for EAS bundles spread across EDNs, S6-222305, 3DPP TSG-SA WG6 Meeting #50-e, e-meeting, 22-31 August 2022, hereinafter “QUALCOMM”.
13. As to claim 22, Gazda teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “transmitting, to an edge configuration server (ECS) supporting repository function, a common EAS information store request including the application group ID and common EAS bundle information associated with the common EAS, wherein the EES is registered in the ECS supporting the repository function, and wherein the common EAS bundle information includes at least one of an EAS bundle ID of a common EAS bundle, a list of EAS IDs in the common EAS bundle, or a main EAS ID in the common EAS bundle”.
QUALCOMM discloses “transmitting, to an edge configuration server (ECS) supporting repository function, a common EAS information store request including the application group ID and common EAS bundle information associated with the common EAS, wherein the EES is registered in the ECS supporting the repository function, and wherein the common EAS bundle information includes at least one of an EAS bundle ID of a common EAS bundle, a list of EAS IDs in the common EAS bundle, or a main EAS ID in the common EAS bundle (i.e., QUALCOMM discloses that the ECS may receive the EAS bundle information from the EES during EES registration [via the EES registration request message]. Upon receiving the EAS bundle information as part of the EES registration [request message], the ECS stores the [EAS bundle] information and associates the EES with other EESs providing the same EAS bundle information, wherein the EAS bundle information can be a list of EASs or a bundle ID, see sections 7.26.2.1, 7.26.2.4; and tables 7.26.2.1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of QUALCOM, into Gazda’s to store common EAS information for uniform data modeling and centralized analysis.
14. As to claim 23, Gazda-QUALCOM teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the common EAS bundle information and information on the EES are stored in the ECS supporting repository function (QUALCOMM discloses that upon receiving the EAS bundle information as part of the EES registration [request message], the ECS stores the [EAS bundle] information and associates the EES with other EESs providing the same EAS bundle information, wherein the EAS bundle information can be a list of EASs or a bundle ID, see sections 7.26.2.1, 7.26.2.4; and tables 7.26.2.1-5).
15. As to claim 24, Gazda-QUALCOMM discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the common EAS bundle information includes at least one of EAS bundle type of the common EAS bundle, and wherein the common EAS information store request includes at least one of at least one EES ID related to the EAS bundle and edge data network (EDN) information (QUALCOMM, see sections 7.26.2.1, 7.26.2.4; and tables 7.26.2.1-5).
16. As to claims 29-31, claims 29-31 recite EES claims comprising limitations as of method claims 22-24 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
17. Claims 25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gazda-QUALCOMM, and further in view of Tang et al. (US 2025/0267617 A1), hereinafter “Tang”.
18. As to claim 25, Gazda-QUALCOMM teaches the method of claim 22, but does not explicitly disclose “transmitting, to a network entity included in a core network, an application function (AF) request for the common EAS bundle information, wherein the AF request includes at least one of a user equipment (UE) external group ID, a UE internal group ID, a list of UE IDs, a subscriber category, a traffic correlation indication, or an EAS correlation indication”.
In an analogous art, Tang discloses that an AF request to influence traffic routing is sent to the core network. The AF request targets a collection of UEs, identified by the group ID or specific service information. The AF request is for deleting information with traffic correlation indication and the dedicated relocation information for the collection of UEs ([0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tang, into Gazda-QUALCOMM’s to achieve the claimed invention to notify the core network (e.g. PCF) that one or more UEs no longer belong to the collection of UEs so the specific service information to associate one or more UEs for the specific application is removed from the PCF (Tang, [0100]).
19. As to claim 32, claim 32 recites an EES claim comprising limitations as of method claim 25 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
20. Claims 26 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gazda-QUALCOMM, and further in view of QUALCOMM, EAS bundles, S6-230689, 3GPP TSG-SA WG6 Meeting #53, Athen, Greece, 20 February 2023, hereinafter “QUALCOMM-2”.
21. As to claim 26, Gazda-QUALCOMM teaches the method of claim 22, but does not explicitly disclose “the common EAS bundle information is transmitted to a second EES receiving a common EAS discovery request from a second EEC related to the application group ID”.
In an analogous art, QUALCOMM-2 discloses that the S-EES sends the Retrieve EES request (UE location information or UE identity, EASID of the S-EAS, target DNAI, EAS bundle ID) to the ECS in order to identify the T-EES which has an EAS available to serve the given AC in the UE. The ECS determines T-EES(s) per the parameters (e.g., EASID, target DNAI) in the request and the UE location information. The ECS sends the Retrieve EES response including the list of EDN configuration information to the S-EES. The list of EDN configuration information includes the EDN details with the endpoint information of the T-EES(s) (see section 8.8.3.3). QUALCOMM-2 also discloses that the S-EES invokes the EAS discover request on the T-EES retrieved from the ECS. The EAS discover request includes the requestor identifier [EESID] along with the security credentials and includes EAS discovery filter. Upon receiving the request, the T-EES may trigger the EAS management system to instantiate the T-EAS that matches with EAS discovery filter Ies (e.g., ACID). The T-EES also considers the EAS bundle information if received in the EAS discovery request (see section 8.8.3.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of QUALCOMM-2 into Gazda-QUALCOMM’s to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system to identify the T-EES which has an EAS available to serve the given AC in the UE.
22. As to claim 33, claim 33 recites an EES claim comprising limitations as of method claim 26 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
23. Applicant’s arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
24. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization 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.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights