DETAILED ACTION
Amendments submitted on January 5, 2026 for Application No. 17/612477 are presented for examination by the examiner.
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 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.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks applicant argues:
I) On pages 6-7, Applicant argues that all of the previous issues have been overcome.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejections; however, the amendments have also raised additional issues as shown below.
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.
Claim 17, 19-21, 23, and 25-27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 17, 19-21, 23, and 25-27 recite various steps to retrieve the user consent and perform a user consent update; however, independent claims 16 and 22 have already recited steps to retrieve the user consent and perform a user consent update. Therefore, it is unclear if the steps in the dependent claims are performed in addition to or are alternate variations of the steps performed in independent claims 16 and 22.
Claims 17 and 23 recite “a user consent update request”, “a user consent update response”, and “a user consent update notification”; however, it is unclear if these are the same request/update/notification as defined in independent claims 16 and 22 or a different request/update/notification.
Claims 19 and 25 recite “in case that the user consent is not available at the network entity, retrieving the user consent”; however, the user consent was stored and updated in independent claims 16 and 22 so it is unclear how the user consent could not be available. Therefore, it is unclear if this is the same user consent or a different user consent from independent claims 16 and 22.
Claims 20 and 26 recite “determining whether the user consent is available for providing the UE specific parameter”; however, the user consent was stored and updated in independent claims 16 and 22 so it is unclear how the user consent could not be available. Therefore, it is unclear if this is the same user consent or a different user consent from independent claims 16 and 22
The examiner has cited particular examples of 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant check the claims for further 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections in the event that it was inadvertently missed by the examiner to advance prosecution.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19-21 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 19-21 and 25-27 recite the possibility that the user consent is not available; however, the user consent was stored and updated in independent claims 16 and 22. Therefore, claims 19-21 and 25-27 do not include all of the limitations of independent claims 16 and 22 unless the user consent of claims 19-21 and 25-27 is a different user consent than recited in the independent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 22 are indicated as being allowable. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the limitation, inter alia, “receiving a request for accessing a service; determining whether a user consent for accessing the service is stored at the network entity; in case that the user consent is not available at the network entity, transmitting a request for the user consent including the requested service; in response to the request for the user consent, receiving the user consent for authorizing the access of the service; storing the received user consent; providing the service based on the user consent; receiving, a user consent update request; generating a first one time password (OTP) for the user consent update; transmitting the first OTP; receiving a user consent update notification comprising the user consent update and a second OTP; verifying the second OTP based on the first OTP; in case that the first OTP and the second OTP are matched, transmitting a user consent update response; and updating the user consent".
The closest prior art of record includes:
Mitchell (US 7571466) – teaches checking for stored user consent and if the consent is not stored it obtains the consent from the user and stores the consent in the user profile.
3GPP Edge (NPL “3GPP TR 23.758 - 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on application architecture for enabling Edge Applications; (Release 17)”) – teaches sending a request for a one-time location of the UE or to continuously monitor the user’s location.
3GPP Privacy (NPL “3GPP TR 33.849 – 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on subscriber privacy impact in 3GPP; (Release 14)”) – teaches a setting to control when the user’s location can be shared and when their location cannot be shared.
Zhu (US 2014/0066018) – teaches privacy options to allow or disallow location based services. Zhu also teaches checking the privacy settings for consent and asking for user consent if needed.
Brocious (US 2019/0065731) – teaches using an OTP to transmit data (shared secret) securely between a client and server.
Bodner (US 2007/0100955) – teaches user consent to share user location with web sites.
Altman (US 2008/0070593) – teaches user consent to share user location with social network friends.
Ferguson (US 2019/0327239) – teaches that a user can consent to his device data being shared or not.
However, the combination of limitations as currently claimed cannot be found in the cited prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. 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.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498