DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 112-113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryabenkiy in view of Baek et al (2018/0176768) further in view of Anslot et al (2020/0021973).
Regarding claim 112. Ryabenkiy teaches a mobility management node (figure 2, item 202) for use in a first communication network (figure 2, item 210), the mobility management node comprising a processor and a memory, said memory containing instructions (0030, figure 1 – item 202 “gateway server” comprising memory, processor and program) executable by said processor whereby said mobility management node is operative to:
attach a first wireless device to the first communication network via a first packet gateway in the first communication network for a time period ([0030] - The communication module 202 may be also in communication with an external network (e.g., the internet) thereby allowing the at least one IoT device 201 to send data to and/or receive data from external sources); and
receive, from an analysis node, an indication of whether the first wireless device is to be authenticated in the first communication network ([0034] - In some embodiments, data transferred between the server 205 and the at least one monitoring device 203 may include at least one predetermined rule 204 on allowed values of: type of IoT device, allowed protocols, allowed media access control (MAC) addresses, allowed ports (e.g., source port and/or destination port), allowed IP range, number of packets in communication, size of packets in communication, and allowed status. For example, at least one predetermined rule 204 may check if the type of IoT device is ‘X’, then allow communication through port ‘Y’, or if communication is not in an allowed protocol, block communication, or if the MAC address is not an allowed MAC address, block communication, and the like),
Ryabenkiy does not explicitly teach wherein the indication indicates either that the first wireless device is to be reattached to a different packet gateway in the first communication network or the first wireless device is to be detached from the first communication network.
Baek the manufacturer is identified based on UE ID (e.g., IMEI), received from the UE which is used to connect to a packet gateway owned by a third party for remote provisioning (0058, 0063, 0080). Otherwise, if the PLMN and the selected PLMN do not match each other, the UE detaches from the access PLMN and performs a reattach to another PLMN for remote provisioning (0065, 0111-0112, 0125).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ryabenkiy to include a profile server address information as taught by Baek in order to control the UE to detach from the connected network and attempt to attach to the network operator offering the selected subscription plan to download the profile using the received profile server address information.
Regarding RCE dated 2/12/2026. Applicant amends and argues prior art does not teach the amended claim 112 which was amended with part of objected to claim 115 “receiving authentication information from a subscriber information storage node indicating that a first UE does not have an associated unique subscriber identity” (page 13).
Anslot teaches receiving in an authentication request message a temporary IMSI from the discovery server (0012, 0027) in response to a authentication failure message (e.g,. UE does not have an associated unique subscriber identity (0011, 0026)) which enables the UE to attach to the first network operator and download pending subscription profile, said temporary IMSI belonging to the first network operator and being allocated temporarily to the eUICC for enabling the download of the subscription profile (0012, 0027).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ryabenkiy in view of Baek to use a temporary IMSI as taught by Anslot which enables the UE to use the temporary IMSI to attach to the network operator associate with the temporary IMSI which enables the UE to download subscription profile
Regarding claim 113. Ryabenkiy teaches wherein the mobility management node is further operative to: send, to the analysis node, behavior information relating to the behavior of the first wireless device with respect to the first communication network during the time period following attachment of the first wireless device to the first communication network via the first packet gateway ([0037] - type and/or behavior 211 of the at least one IoT device 201 may be determined by at least one machine learning algorithm 209, for instance using supervised learning on monitored data to learn how IoT devices behave. In some embodiments, monitoring device 203 may use data collected from known IoT devices 201 (with normal or allowed behavior) as input for supervised learning with the at least one machine learning algorithm 209 in order to achieve an algorithm to determine type and/or behavior 211 of newly connected and/or unknown IoT devices 201. For example, the collected data for a particular IoT device 201 may include network activity details with communication carried out from a specific source IP/MAC address and/or to a specific destination IP/MAC address, [0042] - According to some embodiments, a group of analysts may be registered at profile management system 300, with each such analyst having access to at least one IoT device (e.g., external to vulnerability detection system 200) to be analyzed and provide data to add at least one new profile 307 of IoT devices 201 of vulnerability detection system 200. The analysis of the at least one IoT device may also collect information for at least one machine learning algorithm to automatically generate IoT device profiles. For example, an owner of at least one IoT device may be registered at profile management system 300 and receive (e.g., from server 205) a dedicated analytics tool (e.g., via a mobile application) with instructions and/or tasks to analyze communication from/to the at least one IoT device in order to gather data and create new profiles 307 for unknown IoT devices. Such instructions and/or tasks may also be directed to gather device data such as MAC address, for instance get a task to capture physical image of the device when the address is indicated (e.g., on a sticker at the back of the device). In some embodiments, manufacturers of IoT devices may cooperate with profile management system 300 and reward (e.g., with tokens or the like) analysts that add new profiles 307 as a service to improve security of the IoT devices. In some embodiments, profile verification may be initialized via randomized check of the analysts in order to verify and/or validate each added profile 307.).
2. Claim 124 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryabenkiy in view of Baek and Anslot further in view of Vandikas et al (2019/0090286).
Regarding claim 124. Ryabenkiy in view of Baek and Anslot do not explicitly teach wherein the mobility management node is further operative to: establish a first data session for the first wireless device via the first packet gateway.
Vandikas teaches the MME receives an attachment request which comprises a hardware identifier (e.g., MAC address) associated with the UE. The MME transmits, to a distributed database, a lookup message which includes the hardware identifier associated with the UE. The MME receives, from the distributed database, a domain name of a gateway, where the hardware identifier associated with the UE and the domain name was provided to the database by a manufacture of the device … which enables the manufacturer to control which gateway is selected to attach the UE to the telecommunication network (0021).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ryabenkiy in view of Baek and Anslot to include the distributed database as taught by Vandikas in order to enable the manufacturer to control which gateway is selected to attach the UE to the telecommunication network.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 115 and 120 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4. Claims 84-86, 88, 91, 93, 95-96, 98, 99, 102-103, 105, 107, and 110 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 112, 113, and 124 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---(2019/0081961) Bansal teaches using blockchain storing UE behavior information (0035) in conjunction with third party network information (0038) and uses this information to trigger network security alerts (0047).
---(2020/0245128) Obaidi teaches using blockchain (0016, figure 1 – item 108)
used to store carrier(e.g., third party information) in conjunction with UE behavior information and time information which is added to the blockchain (0023, 0027).
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARRY W TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at 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.
/BARRY W TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646