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 Amendment
Claims 23-29 are newly added to the application. They were never present in any prior claim sheets. Furthermore, claim 22 seems to be different than previous claim 22.
The previous claims dated 12/16/2025 only had claims 1-22.
Previous claims dated back to 1/29/2025 and 1/30/2025 seems to have some canceled claims 21-26 and then just claim 21 was pending.
Then claims dated 6/10/2025 added claim 22, which was later indicated allowable.
Examiner advises Applicant to make sure the number of claims are correct in nature.
Claim 22 seems to be different now than the previously allowable claim 22.
Claims 23-29 were never present in any prior claim sheets.
Claims 3 and 14 are now cancelled.
Claim 22 was previously allowed but now is rejected along with other independent claims, as shown below.
Newly added claims 23-29 are also now rejected as shown below.
Corrections required on claim numbering as well, because previous claims dated back to 1/29/2025 and 1/30/2025 seems to have some canceled claims 21-26. Therefore, newly added claims should start at claim 27.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive,
Applicant argued that Agiwal in view of Komaromi does not disclose the limitation of,
in response to a determination that the communication apparatus does not access the false base station, sending, by the communication apparatus, a second uplink NAS message that is integrity protected, wherein the second uplink NAS message comprises system-related information of the cell accessed by the communication apparatus.
However, Examiner asserts that due to the broadness of the claim language, Komaromi et al. (US 2021/0051183) does disclose the argued limitation of
in response to a determination that the communication apparatus does not access the false base station, sending, by the communication apparatus, a second uplink NAS message that is integrity protected, wherein the second uplink NAS message comprises system-related information of the cell accessed by the communication apparatus (UE attaching to a network as shown in Fig. 5a, and paragraph [0064]: wherein the second UL NAS message can be the NAS attach Complete message known in the art of NAS protocol).
Due to the broadness of the claim language, the claims are still not yet in condition for allowance, and are rejected as shown below.
Newly added claims are also rejected as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15-17, 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal et al. (US 2017/0295489; hereinafter Agiwal) in view of Komaromi et al. (US 2021/0051183).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, 22, 23, 26 and 27 Agiwal discloses a false base station determining method ([0071]-[0079]; [0239]-[0323]; [0328] and Figs 13-16), comprising:
sending, by a communication apparatus, a first uplink NAS message (Fig. 13, step 1330; [0242]: UE sending Msg3 which includes NAS Auth request to eNB); and
receiving, by the communication apparatus, a first downlink NAS message that is integrity protected, wherein the first downlink NAS message comprises a hash value of first system information (Fig. 13, step 1370; [0246]: UE receiving Msg4 which includes NAS Auth Response and MAC from eNB), and
after integrity verification on the first downlink NAS message succeeds, determining, based on the hash value of first system information, whether the communication apparatus accesses a false base station (Fig. 13, step 1380; [0247]: wherein the UE verifies MAC using integrity verification).
Agiwal discloses all the particulars of the claim except for the limitation of
in response to a determination that the communication apparatus does not access the false base station, sending, by the communication apparatus, a second uplink NAS message that is integrity protected, wherein the second uplink NAS message comprises system-related information of the cell accessed by the communication apparatus.
However, Komaromi does disclose the limitation of in response to a determination that the communication apparatus does not access the false base station, sending, by the communication apparatus, a second uplink NAS message that is integrity protected, wherein the second uplink NAS message comprises system-related information of the cell accessed by the communication apparatus (UE attaching to a network as shown in Fig. 5a, and paragraph [0064]: wherein the second UL NAS message can be the NAS attach Complete message known in the art of NAS protocol).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Komaromi’s disclosure to provide authentication for attaching to a network.
Regarding claims 2, and 13, Agiwal discloses wherein the determining, based on the hash value of first system information, whether the terminal accesses the false base station comprises:
determining, by the terminal communication apparatus, a hash value of second system information of a cell accessed by the terminal communication apparatus ([0247]: UE generates security key KNASInt from KASME then generating the MAC): ;
determining whether the hash value of first system information is consistent with the hash value of second system information ([0247]: based on said generations of KNASInt and MAC, determine whether eNB is authentic); and
in response to determining that the hash value of first system information is consistent with the hash value of second system information, determining that the terminal communication apparatus does not access the false base station ([0247]: based on said generations of KNASInt and MAC, determine whether eNB is authentic); or
in response to determining that the hash value of first system information is inconsistent with the hash value of second system information, determining that the terminal communication apparatus accesses the false base station.
Regarding claims 4, 15, 24 and 28 Agiwal discloses wherein the system-related information comprises the second system information of the cell accessed by the terminal communication apparatus or the hash value of second system information of the cell accessed by the terminal communication apparatus (Fig. 13, ([0247]: UE generates security key KNASInt from KASME then generating the MAC).
Regarding claims 5, 16, and 25 Agiwal discloses further comprising:
receiving, by the terminal communication apparatus, a second downlink NAS message which is integrity protected from the core network device, wherein the second downlink NAS message comprises the first system information (Fig. 15, step 1580, [0266]-[0268]: UE sending to MME for validation).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Agiwal discloses wherein the first uplink NAS message is a NAS service request message or a NAS registration request message ([0242]: NAS authentication request).
Regarding claim 8, Agiwal discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first downlink NAS message is a NAS security mode command message, or any downlink NAS message that is integrity protected after NAS security activation (Fig. 13, [0244]-[0247]L NAS authentication response).
Regarding claim 21, Agiwal discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the communication apparatus is a terminal or a chip in the terminal (Fig. 13, UE).
Claim(s) 6 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal in view of Komaromi in further view of Lee et al (US 2020/0236554; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claims 6 and 29, Agiwal in view of Komaromi discloses all the particulars of the claims but is unclear about wherein during the determining, by the terminal communication apparatus, that the terminal communication apparatus accesses the false base station, the method further comprises:
reselecting a different cell to perform access.
However, Lee does disclose the limitation of wherein during the determining, by the terminal communication apparatus, that the terminal communication apparatus accesses the false base station, the method further comprises:
reselecting a different cell to perform access ([0005]: UE may detach from the fake base station and reattach to different base station).
It would have been obvious to one ordinality skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Lee’s disclosure to prevent registration to false base stations.
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 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 CHUCK HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/CHUCK HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
