DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 13 October 2025. By this response, Claims 43, 44, 46, 50, 53, 54, and 56 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 43-50, 52-56, and 58 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims do not fully comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) that amended claims must be submitted with markings indicating the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. In particular, at least Claim 50 includes text, marked with double brackets for deletion, which was previously deleted from the claim. In order to advance prosecution of the present application and as a courtesy, the amendments have been treated as though they were fully compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(c). Applicant is reminded that all future amendments must fully comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (see pages 14-16 of the present response) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below. It is noted that Applicant has again cited to section 5.2.4.6 of the 3GPP reference (see page 16 of the present response). However, as previously noted in the final rejection mailed 01 April 2025, section 5.2.4.6 does not appear in the excerpt of 3GPP provided by Applicant and relied upon in the rejection, and Applicant has still not provided a copy of this additional section of the reference.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings for failure to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and (5) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the drawings (which appear to revert to the originally filed version of Figure 9). The objection to the drawings for informalities is NOT withdrawn because the amendments to the drawings have raised new issues (similar to those set forth in earlier Office actions), as set forth below.
The drawings are objected to because they include informalities. Figure 9 does not include any text labels. In context, text labels are required for understanding of the drawings as per 37 CFR 1.84(o). See also pages 2-3 of the Office action mailed 28 March 2024. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and Applicant’s statements discussing where support is to be found for the claims as amended (see pages 12-13 of the present response).
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 43 for informalities is withdrawn in light of the amendments thereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 43-50, 52-56, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and Applicant’s statements discussing where support is to be found for the claims as amended (see pages 12-13 of the present response). The rejection of Claims 43-50, 52-56, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
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 43-50, 52-56, and 58 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.
Claim 43 recites “each of the multiple public keys: associated with a respective validity area of an access network, valid in the respective validity area with which it is associated, and associated with an identifier that identifies the respective validity area of the access network where the associated public key is valid” in lines 3-10. It is not grammatically clear how these phrases relate grammatically to the remainder of the claim. They do not appear to be steps to be performed, but they also do not include any transitional language to indicate a grammatical relationship to any of the steps (for example as “wherein” clauses) and do not include a clear verb. Further, with respect to “the access network” in line 9, because the claim previously recited “a respective validity area of an access network” in line 5, this suggests that there could be plural access networks, and therefore, it is not clear to which of these networks “the access network” is intended to refer. With respect to “where the associated public key is valid” in lines 9-10, it is not grammatically clear whether this phrase is intended to modify the area or the network. The claim further recites “the public key” in line 16. It is not clear to which of the multiple public keys this limitation is intended to refer. If this is intended to refer to the single public key of line 14, this should be explicitly referred to as such. The claim additionally recites “area identification information” in line 19. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the “identifier that identifies the respective validity area” in lines 8-9 or to other information that identifies an area. The above ambiguities render the clam indefinite.
Claim 50 recites “each of the multiple public keys being: associated with a respective validity area of an access network, valid in the respective validity area with which it is associated, and associated with an identifier identifying the respective validity area of the access network where the associated public key is valid” in lines 4-10. It is not grammatically clear how these phrases relate grammatically to the remainder of the claim. They do not appear to be steps to be performed, but they also do not include any transitional language to indicate a grammatical relationship to any of the steps (for example as “wherein” clauses). Further, with respect to “the access network” in line 9, because the claim previously recited “a respective validity area of an access network” in line 5, this suggests that there could be plural access networks, and therefore, it is not clear to which of these networks “the access network” is intended to refer. With respect to “where the associated public key is valid” in lines 9-10, it is not grammatically clear whether this phrase is intended to modify the area or the network. The claim further recites “the public key” in line 16. It is not clear to which of the multiple public keys this limitation is intended to refer. If this is intended to refer to the single public key of line 14, this should be explicitly referred to as such. The claim additionally recites “an access network” in line 17. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same access network recited in line 5 or to a distinct network. The claim also recites “a validity area” in line 19. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the respective validity area or to a distinct area. The claim further recites “area identification information” in line 21. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the “identifier identifying the respective validity area” in lines 8-9 or to other information that identifies an area. The above ambiguities render the clam indefinite.
Claim 53 recites “each of the multiple public keys: associated with a respective validity area of an access network, valid in the respective validity area with which it is associated, and associated with an identifier identifying the respective validity area of the access network where the associated public key is valid” in lines 5-12. It is not grammatically clear how these phrases relate grammatically to the remainder of the claim. They do not appear to be functions to be performed, but they also do not include any transitional language to indicate a grammatical relationship to any of the functions (for example as “wherein” clauses) and do not include a clear verb. Further, with respect to “the access network” in line 11, because the claim previously recited “a respective validity area of an access network” in line 7, this suggests that there could be plural access networks, and therefore, it is not clear to which of these networks “the access network” is intended to refer. With respect to “where the associated public key is valid” in lines 11-12, it is not grammatically clear whether this phrase is intended to modify the area or the network. The claim also recites “determining when one or more areas of the access network are shared… and… using a single public key” in lines 13-16. These steps/functions are not grammatically clear following “configured to” and are not in parallel structure with the other functions “obtain multiple public keys”, “obtain SI”, “determine”, and “verify”. The claim further recites “the public key” in line 18. It is not clear to which of the multiple public keys this limitation is intended to refer. If this is intended to refer to the single public key of line 16, this should be explicitly referred to as such. The claim additionally recites “area identification information” in line 21. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the “identifier identifying the respective validity area” in lines 10-11 or to other information that identifies an area. The above ambiguities render the clam indefinite.
Claim 56 recites that the node is configured to “provide a User Equipment (UE) with multiple public keys” in line 5. It is not clear whether the UE itself is provided by the function or the function merely requires providing the keys to an existing UE. The claim further recites “each of the multiple public keys: associated with a respective validity area of an access network, valid in the respective validity area with which it is associated, and associated with an identifier identifying the respective validity area of the access network where the associated public key is valid” in lines 6-12. It is not grammatically clear how these phrases relate grammatically to the remainder of the claim. They do not appear to be functions to be performed, but they also do not include any transitional language to indicate a grammatical relationship to any of the functions (for example as “wherein” clauses) and do not include a clear verb. Further, with respect to “the access network” in line 11, because the claim previously recited “a respective validity area of an access network” in line 7, this suggests that there could be plural access networks, and therefore, it is not clear to which of these networks “the access network” is intended to refer. With respect to “where the associated public key is valid” in lines 11-12, it is not grammatically clear whether this phrase is intended to modify the area or the network. The claim further recites “an access network” in line 18. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same access network recited in line 7 or to a distinct network. The claim additionally recites “a validity area” in line 19. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the respective validity area or to a distinct area. The claim also recites “area identification information” in line 21. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the “identifier identifying the respective validity area” in lines 10-11 or to other information that identifies an area. The above ambiguities render the clam indefinite.
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 43-50, 52-56, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 33.899 v1.0.0, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on the security aspects of the next generation system (Release 14)” (hereinafter “3GPP”), in view of Lee, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0230556 (previously cited in the Office action mailed 01 April 2025).
In reference to Claim 43, 3GPP discloses a method that includes obtaining public keys for system information signature verification where the public keys are associated with a validity area in which the keys are valid and are associated with an identifier identifying the validity area (page 288, public keys provisioned, page 289, Figure 5.4.4.2.2.1-2, step 9, plural public keys in plural tracking areas); obtaining system information (SI) with a signature, where the SI includes area identification information and determining based on the area identification information the validity area that the cell belongs to and a corresponding public key (page 289, Figure 5.4.4.2.2.1-2, step 10); and verifying the signature using the determined public key (page 289, Figure 5.4.4.2.2.1-2, step 11). However, although 3GPP discloses plural public keys and plural validity areas as noted above, 3GPP does not explicitly disclose determining when areas are shared by two or more network operators or using a single public key for the two or more network operators in the shared areas.
Lee discloses a method that includes determining when one or more areas of an access network are shared by two or more mobile network operators (see paragraphs 0244-0263 et seq discussing network sharing by multiple operators, see also paragraphs 0340-0358 for more details on shared network slices and selection) and when one or more areas are shared, using a single public key for the two or more operators in the shared areas where the single public key is valid (paragraph 0198, shared public key, and paragraphs 0199-0206, security set up, including when network slicing is used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of 3GPP to include the two or more network operators and shared public key of Lee, in order to allow proper allocation of shared resources (see Lee, paragraphs 0246-02448).
In reference to Claim 44, 3GPP and Lee further disclose a TAC, Cell ID, RAC, or PCI (see 3GPP, Figure 5.4.4.2.2.1-2, step 9).
In reference to Claim 45 and 49, 3GPP and Lee further disclose updated and revoked keys (3GPP, page 288, public keys provisioned).
In reference to Claims 46, 3GPP and Lee further disclose a mobility pattern (see 3GPP, 5.4.4.2.2.1-2, step 9).
In reference to Claims 47 and 48, 3GPP and Lee further disclose receiving or preconfiguring keys or obtaining the key during handover (3GPP, page 288, public keys provisioned).
In reference to Claim 50, 3GPP discloses a method that includes providing, to user equipment, public keys for signature verification associated with a validity area in which they keys are valid and are associated with an identifier identifying the validity area (page 288, public keys provisioned, page 289, Figure 5.4.4.2.2.1-2, step 9, plural public keys in plural tracking areas); generating a system information signature using a private key corresponding to a validity area (page 289); and providing the system information in a cell with the signature (page 289). However, although 3GPP discloses plural public keys and plural validity areas as noted above, 3GPP does not explicitly disclose determining when areas are shared by two or more network operators or using a single public key for the two or more network operators in the shared areas.
Lee discloses a method that includes determining when one or more areas of an access network are shared by two or more mobile network operators (see paragraphs 0244-0263 et seq discussing network sharing by multiple operators, see also paragraphs 0340-0358 for more details on shared network slices and selection) and when one or more areas are shared, using a single public key for the two or more operators in the shared areas where the single public key is valid (paragraph 0198, shared public key, and paragraphs 0199-0206, security set up, including when network slicing is used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of 3GPP to include the two or more network operators and shared public key of Lee, in order to allow proper allocation of shared resources (see Lee, paragraphs 0246-02448).
In reference to Claim 52, 3GPP and Lee further disclose updated keys (3GPP, page 288, public keys provisioned).
Claims 53-56 and 58 are directed to devices having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 43-45, 50, and 52, respectively, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Furuichi, US Patent 11930372, discloses an apparatus in which a base station may be shared by plural operators using public keys.
Faccin et al, US Patent Application Publication 2007/0184832, discloses a mechanism in which access points are shared by service providers which share public keys.
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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492