Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
1. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 1-2, 5-14 and 17-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2021/0112413 to Pazhyannur in view of U.S. Pub. 2020/0389865 to Kunz and 2022/0201593 to Baek and 2021/0105712 to Speicher and/or in an alternative rejection, Baek in view of Pazhyannur, Kunz and Speicher.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Pazhyannur teaches an apparatus to be employed as a user equipment (UE), the apparatus comprising:
processor circuitry configurable to:
select an Onboarding Standalone Non-Public Network (ON-SNPN) (see sections [0013] to [0014] and [0024], which define private (SNPN) networks, and steps 310/410 in sections [0024] and 0027] which teach the UE sending an attach signal to the selected network, where the PLMN-ID sent in the request is stored in the UE and is associated with the private LTE network access point which receives the request); and
generate a message to establish a connection with an Onboarding Standalone Non-Public Network (ON-SNPN), wherein the message is to include default credentials based on UE default credentials configured in the UE by a device manufacturer (see the processor 514 in Fig. 5 which controls the operation of the wireless device 110 to perform the methods shown in Figs. 2-4, which includes the steps 310/410 of sending a message to provisioning server 140 as described in sections [0022], [0027] and [0029] (for “onboarding” per se as in section [0052]), which includes a standardized identifier (recited “default credentials”) which obtains the credentials for a “private network”); and
radiofrequency (RF) circuitry communicatively coupled with the processor circuitry, wherein the RF circuitry is operable to transmit the generated message to the (ON-SNPN), and receive Standalone Non-Public Network (SNPN) credentials from the (ON-SNPN) based on authentication of the UE using the default credentials, wherein the SNPN credentials are to be used for authentication and access to a corresponding Subscription Owning SNPN (SO-SNPN) (see the communications unit 520 in Fig. 5, and see sections [0022], [0026] to [0027], [0029] and [0052], which teach sending the message to the server 140 (which includes the default credential IMSI) to obtain the private network credentials), although not explicitly the newly recited ON-SNPN.
As the default credentials in Pazhyannur do not mention a “manufacturer” per se, Kunz is added.
In an analogous art, Kunz teaches a system which provisions wireless devices. As shown in Figs. 4 and 5 and as described in sections [0055], [0062] and [0083], Kunz teaches the UE communicating a request for long term network credentials to the provisioning server includes an IMSI, SUPI and/or UICC IDs and UICC vendor ID for the UE, where these ID numbers/credentials are provided by the manufacturer/vendor.
Therefore, as the teachings in Pazhyannur use a “standardized default identifier” which is provided by a network operator, and as Kunz teaches the conventionality of using default unique credentials from manufactures/vendors to obtain credentials from the provisioning server, it would have been obvious to modify the credentials used in Pazhyannur with those in Kunz, as using the manufacture/vendor credentials allows the device to immediately access a network with those credentials, and alleviates the need for a network operator to provide an IMSI and/or standardized credential to the device.
Regarding the feature of “selecting an ON-SNPN” and authentication of the UE and as the private network in Pazhyannur is not explicitly referred to as an “SNPN”, Baek is added.
In an analogous art, Baek teaches a system which provisions wireless devices to non-public networks (see the Abstract). As shown in Fig. 7 and as described in sections [0092] to [0096], Baek teaches “selecting an SNPN” (in step 701 section [0093]) the UE communicating a request for SNPN credentials to a DN AAA server (where the received SNPN credentials are equivalent to the newly recited ON-SNPN credentials as taught in section [0059], as both of these types of networks are non-public). Regarding the “authentication of the UE”, see steps 702 and 703, where the first step (702) of accessing the network does not require a UE authentication but the second step (703) does require UE authentication in order to subsequently receive the SNPN credentials.
Therefore, as the network in Pazhyannur is “private” (which may be considered as an SNPN (“standalone non-public network”) and as Baek teaches provisioning credentials for SNPN types of private networks, it would have been obvious to modify the types of private networks in Pazhyannur with those in Baek, as allowing an SNPN type of private network to be accessed/provisioned enhances the process of Pazhyannur, as SNPN networks are another type of private network and as section [0046] of Pazhyannur teaches that “any type of network” may be used.
Regarding the steps of claim 1 as shown below:
select an Onboarding Standalone Non-Public Network (ON-SNPN) to which the UE is not subscribed;
generate a message that includes default credentials based on UE default credentials configured in the UE by a device manufacturer;
transmit the generated message to the ON-SNPN to establish connection with the ON-SNPN; and
receive from the ON-SNPN based on authentication of the UE using the default credentials, Standalone Non-Public Network (SNPN) credentials that are related to authentication and access to a corresponding Subscription Owning SNPN (SO-SNPN) to which the UE is subscribed which is a different SNPN than the ON-SNPN.
As described above, the combination of Pazhyannur and Kunz relate to the features of generating a message (to be sent to the onboarding SNPN) which includes the default credentials provided by the manufacturer. Regarding the previous amendments which relate to the first selected ON-SNPN being “not subscribed to by the UE” and “receiving credentials for an SO-SNPN” (being subscribed to), see sections [0092] and [0097] of Baek, which teach that in the first step of Fig. 7, an SNPN is accessed “to which the UE is not subscribed”. Section [0097] teaches that after accessing the provisioning DN AAA server, the UE receives a second different subscription and credential information, which would be “receiving the credentials of the SO-SNPN to which the UE is subscribed”, as recited. See also claim 1 of Baek.
Regarding the feature reciting “select an Onboarding Standalone Non-Public Network (ON-SNPN) to which the UE is not subscribed based on pre-configured ON-SNPN selection information”, Speicher is added.
In an analogous art, Speicher teaches a UE which logs on to an SNPN and then subsequently receives credentials for other “subscribed to networks”. As shown in steps 310-315 in Fig. 3A, and as described in sections [0044] to [0049] (and also in claims 1-4 of Speicher), Speicher teaches that a UE receives a broadcasted list of “ON-SNPNs” from a base station (where these ON-SNPNs are “not subscribed to” but they offer connections to “subscribed networks”), and then the UE compares the received list to its prestored list of prioritized ON-SNPNs (which will allow the UE to obtain subscription credentials from another service provider network to which the UE is subscribed to similar to the features in claim 1). See for example, sections [0050] and [0067], which teach that after logging onto the ON-SNPN, the UE receives/obtains subscription information for the subscribed network via the ON-SNPN it is currently attached to.
Therefore, as Pazhyannur/Baek teach selecting an SNPN to obtain subscription information for another network, and as Speicher also teaches selecting an SNPN (which is “not subscribed to”) in order to receive subscription information from another “subscribed to network” (where the SNPN is selected by the UE from a “pre-configured list stored in the UE” (as now recited)), it would have been obvious to modify the references with the pre-stored list of Speicher, for the reasons as taught in Speicher, which are that some SNPNs will permit access to unsubscribed devices if they have agreements with other networks, and these networks should be stored into the UE so as to avoid logging onto SNPNs which will not provide the support the UE desires.
In an alternative rejection, Baek may be used as the primary reference with Pazhyannur and Kunz added to show the credentials in the message and Speicher added to show that the UE has a pre-configured list of SNPNs.
For example, using Baek as the primary reference, Baek is mapped to claim 1 as shown below:
select an Onboarding Standalone Non-Public Network (ON-SNPN) to which the UE is not subscribed (see the first step of claim 1 of Baek, which recites “selecting a first standalone non-public network (SNPN) to be accessed based on information on the SNPN” and see section [0092], which teaches that the UE does not have a subscription and/or credentials to this first accessed SNPN, as recited);
transmit the generated message to the ON-SNPN to establish connection with the ON-SNPN (see the next two “transmitting steps” in claim 1 of Baek, which teach transmitting messages to this SNPN “in order to establish a connection”, as recited); and
receive from the ON-SNPN based on authentication of the UE using the default credentials, Standalone Non-Public Network (SNPN) credentials that are related to authentication and access to a corresponding Subscription Owning SNPN (SO-SNPN) to which the UE is subscribed and which is a different SNPN than the ON-SNPN (see the “receiving step” in claim 1 of Baek, which teaches “receiving, from the network entity, SNPN subscription data including a subscription credential of the terminal for a second SNPN through the PDU session established in response to the PDU session request message”, where the second SNPN is “different than the first”, as now recited.
Regarding the features of claim 1 not explicitly taught in Baek, Pazhyannur, Kunz and Speicher are added as explained below.
Regarding the last step of claim 1 which recites:
receive from the ON-SNPN based on authentication of the UE using the default credentials (although Baek teaches authenticating the UE during the generation and transmission of the messages (see claim 1 and section [0095]), as this is not explicitly taught as “using the default credentials”, Pazhyannur is added.
See sections [0022], [0026] to [0027], [0029] and [0052] of Pazhyannur, which teach sending a message to the server 140 (which includes default credentials, IMSI).
Therefore, as Baek teaches transmitting a message to an ON-SNPN and receiving provisioning credentials for an SO-SNPN and as Pazhyannur teaches transmitting a message to receive private network credentials using the UE default credentials, it would have been obvious to modify Baek to include a default credential, as including some kind of default credential adds to the security of the process in Baek.
Regarding the step of “generate a message that includes default credentials based on UE default credentials configured in the UE by a device manufacturer”, although Baek/Pazhyannur teach transmitting a message to the SNPN with default credentials, as this credential is not from the manufacturer/vendor, Kunz is added.
See sections [0055], [0062] and [0083] of Kunz which teach transmitting a request for network credentials to the provisioning server, which includes an IMEI, “unique identifier”, IMSI, SUPI and/or UICC IDs and UICC vendor ID for the UE.
Therefore, as Baek/Pazhyannur teach transmitting/receiving messages with a default credential, and as Kunz explicitly teaches using manufacturer/vendor credentials, it would have been obvious to modify Baek/Pazhyannur with the credentials used in Kunz, as this allows the UE to automatically access a network without requiring the network operator to interact with the UE and provide credentials, as desired.
As also described above (regarding teachings and motivation), Speicher is added to teach the feature that the UE pre-stores a list of SNPNs, which is used to compare with the received list of SNPNs and is used to select the highest priority SNPN to establish the connection to obtain subscription information, as recited.
Regarding the amendment to claim 1 which now recites “the default credentials are for primary and secondary authentication”, it is noted that this feature may be interpreted as an “intended use” of the credentials (and not given much patentable weight in a method claim), as no positive step of performing the primary or secondary authentications is recited. Regarding the prior art, it is also noted that Speicher teaches in sections [0050] and [0067] that the same UE credentials are used for the initial (first) SNPN network registration and then these same credentials are passed to the home network for a second authentication during the onboarding process.
Regarding the server of claim 11, see provisioning server 140 of Pazhyannur (and DN AAA server of Baek), which would perform the steps of claim 11 in response to receiving the messages from the UE as explained above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, which recite “wherein the default credentials include a unique UE identifier”, see for example, sections [0014] to [0018], [0024] to [0027] and [0052] of Pazhyannur which teach that the UE device includes the standardized IMSI identifier (which is the default credential) which includes an IMSI (which is a unique UE identifier) and see section [0095] of Baek, which also teaches using “default credential” from the UE in order to obtain the required private network credentials from the provisioning server. See also section [0055] of Kunz which teaches “information of the device identities (“IDs”) (e.g., this may be an IMEI or a unique identifier)”, as recited.
Regarding claim 5, which recites “wherein the processor circuitry is configurable to: discover and select the ON-SNPN based on information broadcasted by the ON-SNPN and configured information in the UE”, see step 702 in Fig. 7 and sections [0096] to [0097] of Baek, which teach accessing an ON-SNPN, as recited.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, which recite “wherein the ON-SNPN discovers and connects with a Default Credential Server (DCS) based on the default credentials, and the ON-SNPN authenticates the UE with the DCS to verify whether the UE is allowed to access the SNPN for onboarding purposes”, see sections [0093] to [0095] of Baek, which teach authentications by the ON-SNPN (step 703) and the credential server (step 704), as recited.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, which recite “wherein the connection to be established is a Configuration Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session, and the processor circuitry is configurable to: establish the Configuration PDU session with the ON-SNPN”, see section [0096] of Baek, which teaches that the connection to the server is a PDU session, as recited.
Regarding claim 8, which recites “wherein the ON-SNPN selects the SO-SNPN and provides the subscription credentials for access to the SO-SNPN”, as the recited “home” network may be the SNPN/NPN network in applied references, the teachings of these references which provide the subscription credentials for the SNPN/NPN (home) network, teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, which recite “wherein the RF circuitry is operable to: obtain the SNPN credentials for the SO-SNPN over a secure connection of the Configuration PDU session”, as described above, see sections [0093] to [0096] of Baek, which teach obtaining the home SNPN credentials over the secure PDU session, where the SNPN/NPN network credentials are the home network credentials, as recited.
Regarding claim 10, which recites “wherein: the processor circuitry is further configurable to generate a registration message to include the SNPN credentials; and the RF circuitry is further operable to transmit the registration message to the SO-SNPN to initiate a registration procedure with the SO-SNPN”, see section [0093] of Baek, which teaches sending registration messages to the home NPN, and sections [0054] and [0056] of Kunz, which teach sending registration messages, where all devices “are off the shelf” and need credentials for registering.
Regarding claim 18, which recites “wherein execution of the instructions is to cause the onboarding server to: compare the unique UE identifier with a configured onboarding list; and select the SO-SNPN based on the comparison”, see sections [0027] to [0031] of Pazhyannur, and [0062] and [0083] of Kunz, which teach receiving the UE ID, and Baek for the SNPN credentials per se. Therefore, the combination of references teaches and/or renders obvious this feature, as recited.
Regarding claim 19, which recites “wherein execution of the instructions is to cause the onboarding server to: obtain an SO-SNPN identity from the UE; and select the SO-SNPN using the obtained SO-SNPN identity”, as described above in the rejection of claims 1, 11 and 18, Pazhyannur and Kunz teach receiving the UE ID (which may be an SNPN identity) and providing the network credentials and Baek teaches SNPN per se. Therefore, the combination of references teaches and/or renders obvious this feature, as recited.
Regarding claim 20, which recites “wherein execution of the instructions is to cause the onboarding server to: generate the SNPN credentials; push the SNPN credentials to the selected SO-SNPN”, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11, as the combination of Pazhyannur and Kunz teach “generating network credentials” (by storing these credentials) and transmitting (recited “pushing”) the recited credentials to the UE, and Baek teaches that the credentials are SNPN per se, the combination of references teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of either one of U.S. Patent Pub. 2020/0245235 to Chun or 2022/0322182 to Lee.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, which recite “wherein the default credentials are related to a subscriber permanent identifier (SUPI) of the ON-SNPN, and the SUPI is related to a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier (ID) and Network identifier (NID)”, as the references applied to claims 1-2 do not teach a SUPI comprised of (or related to) a PLMN and NID, either Chun or Lee is added.
In an analogous art, Chun and Lee teach systems which identify UEs with SUPIs. See for example, section [0389] of Chun and sections [0193] and [0201] of Lee, which teach that the SUPI is comprised of the PLMN ID and NID, as recited.
Therefore, as the Baek and Kunz reference teach using SUPIs and as either Chun/Lee teach the conventionality of creating a SUPI (which is related to) a PLMN ID and NID, it would have been obvious to modify the Pazhyannur/Baek/Kunz combination to create the SUPI (as recited and as taught by either Chun or Lee), as this is one conventional way used to identify UEs to networks.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either one of U.S. Patent Pubs. 2021/0306849 to Liu or 2020/0389865 to Palanigounder.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, which recite “wherein the default credentials are related to a SUPI that contains a network-specific identifier that takes a form of a Network Access Identifier (NAI)”, although Baek and Kunz teach using SUPIs and section [0055] of Kunz teaches using SUPIs and IMSIs, as the SUPIs are not in the form of an IMSI or NAI, either one of Liu or Palanigounder is added.
In an analogous art, Liu and Palanigounder teach systems which identify UEs with SUPIs. See for example, section [0069] of Liu and [0037] of Palanigounder, which teach that the SUPI is comprised of one of the IMSI or the NIA, as recited.
Therefore, as the Baek and Kunz reference teach using SUPIs and IMSIs and as either one of Liu/Palanigounder teach the conventionality of creating a SUPI from one of the IMSI or NAI, it would have been obvious to modify the Pazhyannur/Baek/Kunz combination to create the SUPI (as recited and as taught by either Palanigounder/Liu), as these references teach these are the two conventional ways to create SUPIs depending on the type of network to be accessed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-17-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Regarding the newly recited feature that the default credentials are for primary and secondary authentication”, as described above, it is noted that this feature may be interpreted as an “intended use”, as no positively recited step of performing the (primary or secondary) authentications is recited.
Additionally, the references such as Speicher, teach in sections [0050] and [0067] that the same credentials are used for the initial (first) registration and then these same credentials are passed to the home network for a second authentication.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Matt Anderson can be reached on (571)272-4177. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646