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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 17 December 2025 amends claims 1, 8, and 14. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 10 of the response, “However, as previously discussed, Saarinen does not distinguish between different privacy levels for different network slices…Notably, Saarinen makes no mention of generating or using pseudonyms to protect against user identification or different pseudonyms for different privacy levels.” This argument is not persuasive because Saarinen describes pseudonym generation in paragraphs [0056]-[0061], and there is no user identification information utilized to generate pseudonyms in any embodiment. Therefore, the pseudonyms generated in Saarinen can be said to pseudonyms that cannot be determined to be associated with the user of the mobile device without additional information as claimed. Additionally, Saarinen discloses that the network slices can be privacy sensitive slices or non-privacy sensitive slices ([0049]: Applicant’s specification [0043] defines levels of anonymity with respect to offered privacy protection. Therefore, privacy sensitive slices would correspond with a first level of anonymity while non-privacy sensitive slices would correspond with a second level of anonymity) with each having separate pseudonyms ([0067]). Since each slice has a separate pseudonym, each pseudonym can be said to be “associated” with whatever level of privacy/anonymity provided for that slice.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the response, “As a result, the Section 103 rejection of these claims should be withdrawn for at least the foregoing reasons and for the additional features of these claims.” This argument is not persuasive because the amended claim limitations were addressed and rejected in the Final Rejection mailed 17 September 2025 as claims 5, 12, and 18. The rejection of the limitation in question has been incorporated into the rejections of independent claims 1, 8, and 14 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5, 12, and 18 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 1, 8, and 14 were amended to include the limitations of claims 5, 12, and 18. However, claims 5, 12, and 18 were not cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarinen, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0259786, in view of Atarius, WO 2021/254595, in view of Chen, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0041855, and further in view of Nakarmi, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0245139.
Referring to claim 1, Saarinen discloses a wireless network system that includes a network node (Figure 4, element 460), having a processor (Figure 4, element 470 & [0112]), that can be a NodeB/RNC component or a BTS/BSC component ([0110]), which meets the limitation of at least one core network node comprising one or more processors. The wireless network includes a visited network node, having a processor ([0165] & [0168]), that ultimately provides a user device (“UE”) access to requested network slices ([0047] & [0072]: visited network reads on the claimed access network node; UE reads on the claimed mobile device; VN is in communication with network node 460 to the extent that they operate in the wireless network and network node 460 sits between the UE and the VN in the network), which meets the limitation of at least one access network node in communication with the at least one core network node, wherein the at least one access network node comprises one or more processors, wherein the at least one core network node and the at least one access network node are configured to provide transport network connectivity to a mobile device [having a mobile directory number associated therewith] for access to multiple network slice instances. A home network (“HN”), having a processor ([0165] & [0168]), authenticates the UE for access to designated network slices ([0047]: HN reads on the claimed credential service node; UE and HN share information about which slices the UE is allowed to access; HN has authenticated the UE), which meets the limitation of a credential service node comprising one or more processors, the credential service node configured to authenticate the mobile device for access to the multiple network slice instances. Separate pseudonyms are generated for each network slice by the UE ([0067]), which meets the limitation of [credential service node configured to] provide anonymity to the mobile device by generating a first pseudonymous identifier of the mobile device for a first network slice instance of the multiple network slice instances and a second pseudonymous identifier of the mobile device for a second network slice instance of the multiple network slice instances, wherein the second pseudonymous identifier is different than the first pseudonymous identifier. The pseudonyms are generated without the use of user identification information ([0056]-[0061]: there is no user identification information utilized to generate pseudonyms in any embodiment), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier cannot be determined to be associated with a user of the mobile device without additional information, wherein the second pseudonymous identifier cannot be determined to be associated with a user of the mobile device without additional information. The network slices can be privacy sensitive slices or non-privacy sensitive slices ([0049]: Applicant’s specification [0043] defines levels of anonymity with respect to offered privacy protection. Therefore, privacy sensitive slices would correspond with a first level of anonymity while non-privacy sensitive slices would correspond with a second level of anonymity) with each having separate pseudonyms ([0067]: Since each slice has a separate pseudonym, each pseudonym can be said to be “associated” with whatever level of privacy/anonymity provided for that slice), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier is associated with a first level of anonymity, wherein the second pseudonymous identifier is associated with a second level of anonymity, the second level different from the first level.
Saarinen does not disclose that the pseudonyms are created in the home network. Atarius discloses generation of UE pseudonyms by a UDM in the home network and provided to the UE ([0044] & [0048] & Figure 1A & [0081]: UDM included in home network), which meets the limitation of a credential service node configured to generate pseudonyms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have been created in the home network because pseudonym generation by the home network is one of a finite number of possible entities that could have generated the pseudonyms with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Atarius ([0044] & [0048]).
Saarinen does not specify that the pseudonyms expire. Atarius discloses the utilization of pseudonyms with corresponding expirations such that upon expiration, new pseudonyms are generated ([0068] & [0093]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier and the second pseudonymous identifier are each temporary identifiers that are associated with respective lifecycles of the first network slice instance and the second network slice instance respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have had corresponding expirations in order to require periodic re-registration ([0068]) as suggested by Atarius.
Separate pseudonyms are generated for each network slice by the UE ([0067]). Saarinen does not explicitly disclose that the UE includes a mobile directory number (“MDN”), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier does not include a mobile directory number and the second pseudonymous identifier does not include mobile directory number for the simple reason that Saarinen does not disclose the inclusion of mobile directory numbers in any manner. Therefore, the pseudonyms generated in Saarinen do not include mobile directory numbers. Chen discloses mobile devices including MDNs ([0016]), which meets the limitation of a mobile device having a mobile directory number associated therewith. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the UEs of Saarinen to have included MDNs in order to allow for the UEs of Saarinen to secure access to wireless networks in a manner that allows for proper metering and billing of data usage as suggested by Chen ([0016]).
Saarinen does not disclose that the pseudonyms are generated based on subscription information. Nakarmi the generation of pseudonym identifiers based in part on subscription identifiers such that the subscription identifiers are hidden ([0031]: as applied to the Saarinen reference, the pseudonyms are specific to network slices that are privacy sensitive slices or non-privacy sensitive slices. Therefore, the pseudonym identifiers would be generated based at least in part on the desired level of privacy protection. Examiner notes that the specification does not define how the pseudonymous identifiers are generated based on the subscription information. Paragraph [0052] of Applicant’s specification does not define how the pseudonymous identifiers are specifically generated. Instead, the specification merely states that the pseudonymous identifiers are generated “based on” the subscription information.), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier and the second pseudonymous identifier are generated based at least in part on subscription information comprising a level of desired privacy protection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have been generated as concealed subscription identifiers in order to allow for UPFs or SMFs to allocation resources without having access to the subscription identifier as suggested by Nakarmi ([0018]).
Referring to claim 2, Saarinen discloses that the pseudonyms are included in mappings along with slice NSSAI information ([0065] & [0079]-[0083]: mappings can be considered metadata; mappings are associated with the UE to the extent that the UE and the HN agree on the mappings [0065]; Examiner notes that the claimed “to enable” limitation represents intended use; A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier is associated with a set of metadata associated with the mobile device to enable tracking of the set of metadata for the first network slice instance.
Referring to claim 5, Saarinen does not specify that the pseudonyms expire. Atarius discloses the utilization of pseudonyms with corresponding expirations such that upon expiration, new pseudonyms are generated ([0068] & [0093]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier or the second pseudonymous identifier is a temporary identifier that is associated with a lifecycle of the first network slice instance or the second network slice instance respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have had corresponding expirations in order to require periodic re-registration ([0068]) as suggested by Atarius.
Referring to claim 7, Saarinen does not specify that the home network is part of an AUSF. Atarius discloses that the home network includes an AUSF function (Figure 1A & [0081]: AUSF 147 part of mobile core network 140; mobile core network 140 can be home network), which meets the limitation of wherein the credential service node is part of an authentication server function (AUSF) of the wireless communication system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the home network of Saarinen to have included an AUSF function because the AUSF represents one a finite number of possible entities that can perform authentication as suggested by Atarius ([0184]).
Referring to claim 8, Saarinen discloses a wireless network system that includes a home network (“HN”) that authenticates a UE for access to designated network slices wherein the network slices are logical networks providing specific network capabilities ([0004] & [0047]: HN reads on the claimed credential service node; UE and HN share information about which slices the UE is allowed to access; HN has authenticated the UE), which meets the limitation of authenticating, by a credential service node, a mobile device having [a mobile directory number associated therewith] for access to multiple network slice instances, wherein each network slice instance of the multiple network slice instances corresponds to one or more of access network functions and one or more core network functions in a wireless communication network. Separate pseudonyms are generated for each network slice by the UE ([0067]), which meets the limitation of generating, [by the credential service node], a first pseudonymous identifier of the mobile device corresponding to a first network slice instance of the multiple network slice instances and, generating, [by the credential service node], a second pseudonymous identifier of the mobile device corresponding to a second network slice instance of the multiple network slice instances, the second pseudonymous identifier being different than the first pseudonymous identifier, wherein the first pseudonymous identifier is different from the second identifier. The pseudonyms are generated without the use of user identification information ([0056]-[0061]: there is no user identification information utilized to generate pseudonyms in any embodiment), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier cannot be determined to be associated with a user of the mobile device without additional information, wherein the second pseudonymous identifier cannot be determined to be associated with a user of the mobile device without additional information. The network slices can be privacy sensitive slices or non-privacy sensitive slices ([0049]: Applicant’s specification [0043] defines levels of anonymity with respect to offered privacy protection. Therefore, privacy sensitive slices would correspond with a first level of anonymity while non-privacy sensitive slices would correspond with a second level of anonymity) with each having separate pseudonyms ([0067]: Since each slice has a separate pseudonym, each pseudonym can be said to be “associated” with whatever level of privacy/anonymity provided for that slice), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier is associated with a first level of anonymity, wherein the second pseudonymous identifier is associated with a second level of anonymity, the second level different from the first level.
Saarinen does not disclose that the pseudonyms are created in the home network. Atarius discloses generation of UE pseudonyms by a UDM in the home network and provided to the UE ([0044] & [0048] & Figure 1A & [0081]: UDM included in home network), which meets the limitation of a generating, by the credential service node, first/second pseudonymous identifiers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have been created in the home network because pseudonym generation by the home network is one of a finite number of possible entities that could have generated the pseudonyms with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Atarius ([0044] & [0048]).
Saarinen does not specify that the pseudonyms expire. Atarius discloses the utilization of pseudonyms with corresponding expirations such that upon expiration, new pseudonyms are generated ([0068] & [0093]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier and the second pseudonymous identifier are each temporary identifiers that are associated with respective lifecycles of the first network slice instance and the second network slice instance respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have had corresponding expirations in order to require periodic re-registration ([0068]) as suggested by Atarius.
Separate pseudonyms are generated for each network slice by the UE ([0067]). Saarinen does not explicitly disclose that the UE includes a mobile directory number (“MDN”), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier does not include a mobile directory number and the second pseudonymous identifier does not include mobile directory number for the simple reason that Saarinen does not disclose the inclusion of mobile directory numbers in any manner. Therefore, the pseudonyms generated in Saarinen do not include mobile directory numbers. Chen discloses mobile devices including MDNs ([0016]), which meets the limitation of a mobile device having a mobile directory number associated therewith. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the UEs of Saarinen to have included MDNs in order to allow for the UEs of Saarinen to secure access to wireless networks in a manner that allows for proper metering and billing of data usage as suggested by Chen ([0016]).
Saarinen does not disclose that the pseudonyms are generated based on subscription information. Nakarmi the generation of pseudonym identifiers based in part on subscription identifiers such that the subscription identifiers are hidden ([0031]: as applied to the Saarinen reference, the pseudonyms are specific to network slices that are privacy sensitive slices or non-privacy sensitive slices. Therefore, the pseudonym identifiers would be generated based at least in part on the desired level of privacy protection. Examiner notes that the specification does not define how the pseudonymous identifiers are generated based on the subscription information. Paragraph [0052] of Applicant’s specification does not define how the pseudonymous identifiers are specifically generated. Instead, the specification merely states that the pseudonymous identifiers are generated “based on” the subscription information.), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier and the second pseudonymous identifier are generated based at least in part on subscription information comprising a level of desired privacy protection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have been generated as concealed subscription identifiers in order to allow for UPFs or SMFs to allocation resources without having access to the subscription identifier as suggested by Nakarmi ([0018]).
Referring to claim 9, Saarinen discloses that the home network (“HN”) that authenticates a UE for access to designated network slices wherein the network slices are logical networks providing specific network capabilities ([0004] & [0047]) is subscribed to be the user of the UE access the network slices ([0003]: user reads on the claimed network operator; operator being subscribed to reads on the claimed trusted entity; operator is trusted to the extent that the user subscribed to the operator), which meets the limitation of wherein the wireless communication network is operated by a network operator, and wherein the credential service node is provided by a trusted entity that is separated by the network operator.
Referring to claim 10, Saarinen discloses that the pseudonyms are included in mappings along with slice NSSAI information ([0065] & [0079]-[0083]: mappings can be considered metadata; mappings are associated with the UE to the extent that the UE and the HN agree on the mappings [0065]; Examiner notes that the claimed “to enable” limitation represents intended use; A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier is associated with a set of metadata associated with the mobile device to enable tracking of the set of metadata for the first network slice instance.
Referring to claim 12, Saarinen does not specify that the pseudonyms expire. Atarius discloses the utilization of pseudonyms with corresponding expirations such that upon expiration, new pseudonyms are generated ([0068] & [0093]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier or the second pseudonymous identifier is a temporary identifier that is associated with a lifecycle of the first network slice instance or the second network slice instance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have had corresponding expirations in order to require periodic re-registration ([0068]) as suggested by Atarius.
Referring to claim 14, Saarinen discloses a wireless network system wherein a UE registers with the network using a registration request message such that a home network (“HN”) authenticates the UE for access to designated network slices wherein the network slices are logical networks providing specific network capabilities ([0004] & [0047]: HN reads on the claimed credential service node), which meets the limitation of registering with a credential service node by a user device [having a mobile directory number associated therewith] to be authenticated for access to multiple network slice instances, wherein each of the multiple network slice instances corresponds to one or more of access network functions and one or more core network functions in a wireless communication network. Separate pseudonyms are generated for each network slice by the UE ([0067]), which meets the limitation of obtaining, by the user device [from the credential service node], a first pseudonymous identifier of the user device corresponding to a first network slice instance of the multiple network slice instances. The UE sends the pseudonym for the network slice to a VN ([0068]) such that the VN provides the UE access to the requested network slice ([0072]), which meets the limitation of performing, by the user device, communication using the first network slice instance using the first pseudonymous identifier. Saarinen discloses that separate pseudonyms are generated for each network slice by the UE ([0067]), which meets the limitation of obtaining, by the user device [from the credential service node], a second pseudonymous identifier of the user device corresponding to a second network slice instance of the multiple network slice instances, the second pseudonymous identifier being different than the first pseudonymous identifier, wherein the first pseudonymous identifier is different from the second pseudonymous identifier. The UE sends the pseudonym for the network slice to a VN ([0068]) such that the VN provides the UE access to the requested network slice ([0072]), which meets the limitation of performing, by the user device, communication using the second network slice instance using the second pseudonymous identifier. The pseudonyms are generated without the use of user identification information ([0056]-[0061]: there is no user identification information utilized to generate pseudonyms in any embodiment), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier cannot be determined to be associated with a user of the mobile device without additional information, wherein the second pseudonymous identifier cannot be determined to be associated with a user of the mobile device without additional information. The network slices can be privacy sensitive slices or non-privacy sensitive slices ([0049]: Applicant’s specification [0043] defines levels of anonymity with respect to offered privacy protection. Therefore, privacy sensitive slices would correspond with a first level of anonymity while non-privacy sensitive slices would correspond with a second level of anonymity) with each having separate pseudonyms ([0067]: Since each slice has a separate pseudonym, each pseudonym can be said to be “associated” with whatever level of privacy/anonymity provided for that slice), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier is associated with a first level of anonymity, wherein the second pseudonymous identifier is associated with a second level of anonymity, the second level different from the first level.
Saarinen does not disclose that the pseudonyms are created in the home network. Atarius discloses generation of UE pseudonyms by a UDM in the home network and provided to the UE ([0044] & [0048] & Figure 1A & [0081]: UDM included in home network), which meets the limitation of a obtaining, by the user device from the credential service node, a first/second pseudonymous identifier. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have been created in the home network because pseudonym generation by the home network is one of a finite number of possible entities that could have generated the pseudonyms with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Atarius ([0044] & [0048]).
Saarinen does not specify that the pseudonyms expire. Atarius discloses the utilization of pseudonyms with corresponding expirations such that upon expiration, new pseudonyms are generated ([0068] & [0093]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier and the second pseudonymous identifier are each temporary identifiers that are associated with respective lifecycles of the first network slice instance and the second network slice instance respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have had corresponding expirations in order to require periodic re-registration ([0068]) as suggested by Atarius.
Separate pseudonyms are generated for each network slice by the UE ([0067]). Saarinen does not explicitly disclose that the UE includes a mobile directory number (“MDN”), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier does not include a mobile directory number and the second pseudonymous identifier does not include mobile directory number for the simple reason that Saarinen does not disclose the inclusion of mobile directory numbers in any manner. Therefore, the pseudonyms generated in Saarinen do not include mobile directory numbers. Chen discloses mobile devices including MDNs ([0016]), which meets the limitation of a mobile device having a mobile directory number associated therewith. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the UEs of Saarinen to have included MDNs in order to allow for the UEs of Saarinen to secure access to wireless networks in a manner that allows for proper metering and billing of data usage as suggested by Chen ([0016]).
Saarinen does not disclose that the pseudonyms are generated based on subscription information. Nakarmi the generation of pseudonym identifiers based in part on subscription identifiers such that the subscription identifiers are hidden ([0031]: as applied to the Saarinen reference, the pseudonyms are specific to network slices that are privacy sensitive slices or non-privacy sensitive slices. Therefore, the pseudonym identifiers would be generated based at least in part on the desired level of privacy protection. Examiner notes that the specification does not define how the pseudonymous identifiers are generated based on the subscription information. Paragraph [0052] of Applicant’s specification does not define how the pseudonymous identifiers are specifically generated. Instead, the specification merely states that the pseudonymous identifiers are generated “based on” the subscription information.), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier and the second pseudonymous identifier are generated based at least in part on subscription information comprising a level of desired privacy protection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have been generated as concealed subscription identifiers in order to allow for UPFs or SMFs to allocation resources without having access to the subscription identifier as suggested by Nakarmi ([0018]).
Referring to claim 15, Saarinen discloses that the pseudonyms are included in mappings along with slice NSSAI information ([0065] & [0079]-[0083]: mappings can be considered metadata; mappings are associated with the UE to the extent that the UE and the HN agree on the mappings [0065]; Examiner notes that the claimed “to enable” limitation represents intended use; A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier is associated with a set of metadata associated with the user device to enable tracking of the set of metadata for the first network slice instance.
Referring to claim 18, Saarinen does not specify that the pseudonyms expire. Atarius discloses the utilization of pseudonyms with corresponding expirations such that upon expiration, new pseudonyms are generated ([0068] & [0093]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier or the second pseudonymous identifier is a temporary identifier that is associated with a lifecycle of the first network slice instance or the second network slice instance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed for the pseudonyms of Saarinen to have had corresponding expirations in order to require periodic re-registration ([0068]) as suggested by Atarius.
Referring to claim 19, Saarinen discloses that separate pseudonyms are generated for each network slice by the UE ([0067]: pseudonym can read on the mobile directory number since the pseudonym can be a number [0027] and “mobile directory” would simply represent the name of the claimed number. The name of the number would represent non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.04-2111.05) such that the UE sends the pseudonym for the network slice to a VN ([0068]) and the VN provides the UE access to the requested network slice ([0072]), which meets the limitation of performing, by the user device, communication using the third network slice instance using a mobile directory number of the user device.
Referring to claim 20, Saarinen discloses that a form of pseudonym can include encrypting an NSSAI with the HN’s public key ([0054]) in locations where use of encryption is permitted ([0055]), which meets the limitation of wherein the first pseudonymous identifier is generated based on a public key associated with user information.
Claims 3, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarinen, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0259786, in view of Atarius, WO 2021/254595, in view of Chen, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0041855, in view of Nakarmi, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0245139, and further in view of Lau, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0120721. Referring to claims 3, 17, Saarinen does not specify that the network slices are associated with different pricing plans. Lau discloses associating network slices with different pricing plans ([0012] & [0051]), which meets the limitation of wherein usage of the first pseudonymous identifier for the first network slice instance and usage of the second pseudonymous identifier for the second network slice instance are associated with different pricing plans, subscribing to different pricing plans by the user device for usage of the first pseudonymous identifier for the first network slice instance and usage of the second pseudonymous identifier for the second network slice instance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the network slices of Saarinen to have been associated with different characteristics such as pricing plans in order to allow for the users to perform optimal network slice selection as suggested by Lau ([0021]).
Claims 4, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarinen, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0259786, in view of Atarius, WO 2021/254595, in view of Chen, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0041855, in view of Nakarmi, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0245139, and further in view of Ferguson, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0142623. Referring to claims 4, 11, Saarinen does not specify that a mobile directory number is received from the home network. Ferguson discloses that the mobile directory number and history information can be received from the home network ([0186]), which meets the limitation of wherein the credential service node is configured to provide a mobile directory number of the mobile device for traffic associated with a third network slice instance of the multiple slice instances. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the home network of Saarinen to have provided UE mobile directory number information in order to allow for the detection of fraudulent activities as suggested by Ferguson ([0186]).
Claims 6, 13, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarinen, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0259786, in view of Atarius, WO 2021/254595, in view of Chen, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0041855, in view of Nakarmi, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0245139, and further in view of Wang, WO 2022/252658. Referring to claims 6, 13, 21, Saarinen does not specify the home network implemented as a blockchain. Wang discloses implementing home network functionality in a blockchain (Page 3, second full paragraph) such that the blockchain element can generate public keys and private keys for the mobile device (Page 39, last paragraph), which meets the limitation of wherein the credential service node is implemented as a blockchain based on a public key and a private key associated with user data of the mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for home network functionality in Saarinen to have been implemented in blockchain in order to allow for access control of mobile devices without the need to established roaming connections between visited networks and home networks as suggested by Wang (Page 3, second full paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6:20-4:50.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437