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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 15 has been entered. Claims 21, 23, 25-30, 33-35, and 37 are pending in the application. Applicant has submitted amendments to the claims along with other remarks. Claims 30, 33-35, and 37 are still rejected by prior art references, refer to the following rejection for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pp. 9-14 of the response, filed December 15, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21, 23, 25-30, 33-35, and 37 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration for the amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new reference, please see the rejection for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 30, 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has introduced amendments to the claims without indicating where the original specification supported the subject matter. After reviewing the specification, it is unclear where support for these amendments is provided in the original specification.
The MPEP provides that “[w]ith respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims.” MPEP § 2163(II). As such, “Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘wherein the authentication response message lacks a SEAF key’ in the application as filed.” See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 30, 33-35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-patent Literature entitled “A Comparative Introduction to 4G and 5GAuthentication” (hereinafter “CableLabs”) in view of Korean Publication No. KR20190018297A (hereinafter "Lee") and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0107250 (hereinafter “So”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0141661 (hereinafter “Kievit”).
Regarding claim 30, CableLabs teaches: An initial Access and Mobility management Function ("AMF") apparatus having a co-located Security Anchor Function ("SEAF") (p. 10/21, Upon receiving the K, the SEAF derives the AMF key (K) (and then deletes the K immediately) and sends the K to the co-located Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF).), the apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the processor configured to cause the apparatus to: transmit an authentication request message to an Authentication Server Function ("AUSF") (Step 2, Figure 4, p. 9/21, AUSF), the authentication request message comprising an AMF Slice Capabilities information element ("IE") ; receive an authentication response message from the AUSF, the authentication response message comprising: a Slice Compatibility indicator, an authentication token for authentication of a target AMF (HXRES), AMF Authentication Information and authentication result, wherein the authentication response message lacks a SEAF key (Step 7, Figure 4, p. 9/21); determine that an AMF slice is not compatible with registration of a user equipment("UE").
CableLabs does not teach: the first authentication request message comprising an AMF Slice Capabilities Information Element ("IE"); the data request message comprising the received AMF Slice Capabilities IE; and wherein the authentication response message includes . . . the Slice Compatibility indicator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches: the first authentication request message comprising an AMF Slice Capabilities Information Element ("IE"); the data request message comprising the received AMF Slice Capabilities IE; and wherein the authentication response message includes . . . the Slice Compatibility indicator ([0096] During the initial registration process, the terminal may transmit a Registration Request message to the AMF including terminal capability information indicating whether the terminal can support the slice function (Step 1, Fig. 2g). [0097] it is possible to determine whether the terminal supports the slice function by checking the UE subscription information in the subscription check step of Step 2 of Figure 2g. [0098] AMF can transmit network capability information, including whether the network can support the slice function, in a response message to a Registration Request sent to a terminal during the initial registration process of the terminal (Step 3, Fig. 2g). A terminal that has received network capability information can enable or disable its slicing function depending on whether the network supports slicing. For example, if the network supports slicing, the terminal's slicing function can be enabled, or if the network does not support slicing, the terminal's slicing function can be disabled.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CableLabs to include the feature of slice capability information and a combination of CableLabs with Lee renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., relaying slice capability information during registration and authentication).
The combination of CableLabs and Lee does not teach: determine that an AMF slice is not compatible with registration of a user equipment("UE"), the determination based on the received slice compatibility indicator having a value that indicates that an AMF slice is not compatible with registration of the UE; initiate an AMF reallocation procedure of the UE to the target AMF in response to determining that an AMF slice is not compatible with the UE's registration; and transmit a reroute AS message to a radio access network ("RAN") node, the reroute NAS message comprising the slice compatibility indicator and the authentication token.
However, in the same field of endeavor, So teaches: determine that an AMF slice is not compatible with registration of a User Equipment device ("UE") ([0121] When an AMF receives a Registration request, the AMF may need to reroute the Registration request to another AMF, e.g. when the initial AMF is not the appropriate AMF to serve the UE. The Registration with AMF re-allocation procedure, described in FIG. 4.2.2.2.3-1 of 3GPP TS.23.502, is used to reroute the NAS message of the UE to the target AMF during a Registration procedure.), the determination based on the received Slice Compatibility indicator having a value that indicates that an AMF slice is not compatible with registration of the UE ([0123] the Initial UE message and re-registration message may include the UE MM Core Network Capability that indicates its support for Coexistent Slicing Group.); initiate an AMF reallocation procedure of the UE to a Target AMF in response to determining that an AMF slice is not compatible with the with registration of the UE ([0121] When an AMF receives a Registration request, the AMF may need to reroute the Registration request to another AMF, e.g. when the initial AMF is not the appropriate AMF to serve the UE. The Registration with AMF re-allocation procedure, described in FIG. 4.2.2.2.3-1 of 3GPP TS.23.502, is used to reroute the NAS message of the UE to the target AMF during a Registration procedure.); and transmit a Reroute NAS message to a Radio Access Network ("RAN") node, the reroute NAS message comprising the Slice Compatibility indicator and the authentication token, ([0121] When an AMF receives a Registration request, the AMF may need to reroute the Registration request to another AMF, e.g. when the initial AMF is not the appropriate AMF to serve the UE. The Registration with AMF re-allocation procedure, described in FIG. 4.2.2.2.3-1 of 3GPP TS.23.502, is used to reroute the NAS message of the UE to the target AMF during a Registration procedure.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of CableLabs and Lee to include the feature of reallocation based on slice capability and a combination of CableLabs and Lee with So renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., reallocation based on slice capability).
The combination of CableLabs, Lee, and So teaches an authentication token and a security context. The combination does not teach: wherein the Reroute NAS message further comprises a Key Set Identifier ("KSI") that identifies a primary UE security context, wherein the inclusion of the KSI in the Reroute NAS message indicates that a primary authentication of the UE has been completed successfully.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kievit teaches: wherein the second authentication request message includes . . .a Key Set Identifier ("KSI") that identifies a primary UE security context ([0129] Step 10: The SEAF additionally includes the ngKSI that it already sent to the UE in the message to the AUSF.), wherein the inclusion of the KSI in the second authentication request message indicates that a primary authentication of the UE has been completed successfully ([0036] 8. The SEAF receives the EAP-Request/AKA′ Challenge and sends this message to the UE. The SEAF also includes the ngKSI and the ABBA parameter so that the K.sub.AMF can be derived by the UE after successful authentication.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of CableLabs, Lee, and So to include the feature of using a KSI to identify the primary UE security context and a combination of CableLabs, Lee, and So with Kievit renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., using a KSI to indicate successful authentication and identify the primary security context).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of CableLabs and Lee does not teach: wherein the Authentication Result received by the initial AMF comprises one of the following values: 'Success,''Failure' and 'Paused', wherein the initial AMF receives an Authentication Result with a value of 'Failure' or with a value of 'Paused' when the Slice Compatibility indicator value is set to 'Incompatible Slice', wherein the initial AMF receives an Authentication Result with a value of 'Success' when the Slice Compatibility indicator value is set to 'Compatible Slice'.
However, So teaches: wherein the Authentication Result received by the initial AMF comprises one of the following values: 'Success,''Failure' and 'Paused', wherein the initial AMF receives an Authentication Result with a value of 'Failure' or with a value of 'Paused' and the Slice Compatibility indicator value is set to 'Incompatible Slice' ([0134] 5. [Conditional] Initial AMF to old AMF may provide a message that includes Namf_Communication_RegistrationCompleteNotify (failure cause).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of CableLabs and Lee to include the result values based on slice capability and a combination of CableLabs and Lee with So renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing result values).
Regarding claim 34, CableLabs teaches: wherein the authentication request message is sent via the co-located SEAF during one of: an initial registration of the UE or a mobility registration update of the UE, wherein the authentication response is received via the co-located SEAF (Step 2 or Step 12, Figure 4).
Regarding claim 35, CableLabs teaches: A target Access and Mobility management Function ("AMF") apparatus having a co-located Security Anchor Function ("SEAF") (p. 10/21, Upon receiving the K, the SEAF derives the AMF key (K) (and then deletes the K immediately) and sends the K to the co-located Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF).), the apparatus comprising: receive a Reroute NAS message from a RAN node, the Reroute NAS message comprising a Slice Compatibility indicator and an Authentication Token, wherein the Slice Compatibility indicator is set to a value that indicates that an initial AMF is not compatible with a User Equipment device ("UE") registration; transmit an authentication request message to an Authentication Server Function ("AUSF") via the co-located SEAF, the authentication request message comprising the Authentication Token and a Subscription Concealed Identifier ("SUCI") (p. 8/21 Note that the UE should send the SEAF a temporary identifier (a5G-GUTI) or an encrypted permanent identifier (a SUCI) if a 5G-GUTI has not been allocated by the serving network for the UE. The SUCI is the encrypted form of the SUPI using the public key of the home network. Thus, a UE’s permanent identifier, e.g., the IMSI, is never sent in clear text over the radio networks in 5G. This feature is considered a major security improvement over prior generations such as 4G. The SEAF starts authentication by sending an authentication request to the AUSF, which first verifies that the serving network requesting the authentication service is authorized.); and receive an authentication response message from the AUSF via the SEAF, the authentication response message comprising an AMF key ("Kamf') and a Subscription Permanent Identifier ("SUPI") of the UE (p. 9-10/21 If the RES token from the UE is valid, the AUSF computes an anchor key (K) and sends it to the SEAF, along with the SUPI if applicable. . . . Upon receiving the K, the SEAF derives the AMF key (K) (and then deletes the K immediately) and sends the K to the co-located Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF).).
CableLabs does not teach: receive a Reroute NAS message from a RAN node, the Reroute NAS message comprising a Slice Compatibility indicator and an Authentication Token, wherein the Slice Compatibility indicator is set to a value that indicates that an initial AMF is not compatible with a User Equipment device ("UE") registration.
CableLabs discloses 5G authentication mechanism (CableLabs p. 8/21). CableLabs discloses transmitting deriving and transmitting a token to a SEAF (Steps. 6-7 on p. 9/21). The token is sent in response to an auth request (Step 2 on p. 9/21). CableLabs teaches that the HXRES is used to authenticate the AMF (p. 9/21 If validation succeeds, the UE considers the network to be authenticated.) Further, on p. 10/21, CableLabs teaches that “Upon receiving the K, the SEAF derives the AMF key (K) (and then deletes the K immediately) and sends the K to the co-located Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF). The AMF will then derive from the K (a) the confidentiality and integrity keys needed to protect signaling messages between the UE and the AMF . . . . CableLabs does not disclose that the auth request comprises “an AMF Slice Capabilities IE . . . [or] the Slice Compatibility indicator.”
Lee discloses “method for negotiating provision function and mapping slice information between network and user equipment in 5G system” (Lee, Title). Lee discloses transmitting the “AMF Slice Capabilities IE . . . [or] the Slice Compatibility indicator” during the initial registration process. For example, “[0096] During the initial registration process, the terminal may transmit a Registration Request message to the AMF including terminal capability information indicating whether the terminal can support the slice function.” (Step 1, Fig. 2g).
Thus, CableLabs and Lee each disclose transmitting an initial registration message. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the registration message of Lee could have been substituted for the registration of CableLabs because both perform the function of initializing a session. CableLabs could then transmit the token when the Slice Compatibility indicator indicates that the AMF is not compatible with the UE registration. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of initializing a connection using the methods known in CableLabs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the registration techniques in Lee for the registration techniques in CableLabs according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing an authorization token in response to receiving slice capabilities information.
The combination of CableLabs and Lee does not teach: receive a Reroute NAS message from a RAN node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, So teaches: determine that an AMF slice is not compatible with registration of a User Equipment device ("UE") ([0121] When an AMF receives a Registration request, the AMF may need to reroute the Registration request to another AMF, e.g. when the initial AMF is not the appropriate AMF to serve the UE. The Registration with AMF re-allocation procedure, described in FIG. 4.2.2.2.3-1 of 3GPP TS.23.502, is used to reroute the NAS message of the UE to the target AMF during a Registration procedure.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of CableLabs and Lee to include the feature of reallocation based on slice capability and a combination of CableLabs and Lee with So renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., reallocation based on slice capability).
The combination of CableLabs, Lee, and So teaches an authentication token and a security context. The combination does not teach: wherein the Reroute NAS message further comprises a Key Set Identifier ("KSI") that identifies a primary UE security context, wherein the inclusion of the KSI in the Reroute NAS message indicates that a primary authentication of the UE has been completed successfully.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kievit teaches: wherein the second authentication request message includes . . .a Key Set Identifier ("KSI") that identifies a primary UE security context ([0129] Step 10: The SEAF additionally includes the ngKSI that it already sent to the UE in the message to the AUSF.), wherein the inclusion of the KSI in the second authentication request message indicates that a primary authentication of the UE has been completed successfully ([0036] 8. The SEAF receives the EAP-Request/AKA′ Challenge and sends this message to the UE. The SEAF also includes the ngKSI and the ABBA parameter so that the K.sub.AMF can be derived by the UE after successful authentication.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of CableLabs, Lee, and So to include the feature of using a KSI to identify the primary UE security context and a combination of CableLabs, Lee, and So with Kievit renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., using a KSI to indicate successful authentication and identify the primary security context).
Regarding claim 37, CableLabs teaches: wherein the co-located SEAF receives an authentication response message from the AUSF, the authentication response message comprising a SEAF key ("Kseaf'), wherein the SEAF derives the Kamf using the Kseaf (p. 9-10/21 If the RES token from the UE is valid, the AUSF computes an anchor key (K) and sends it to the SEAF, along with the SUPI if applicable. . . . Upon receiving the K, the SEAF derives the AMF key (K) (and then deletes the K immediately) and sends the K to the co-located Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF).).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 23, 25-29 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claim 21 recites: a processor configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a data response message from the UDM, wherein the data response message includes a slice compatibility indicator having a value that indicates that an AMVIF slice is not compatible with registration of a user equipment ("UE"); generate an AUSF key ("Kausf") in response to the slice compatibility indicator.
CableLabs (“A Comparative Introduction to 4G and 5GAuthentication”) teaches: receive a data response message from the UDM, wherein the data response message includes a Slice Compatibility indicator (Step 5, Figure 4, p. 9/21); and determine not to transmit a SEAF key to the SEAF in response to the Slice Compatibility indicator indicating that an AMF slice is not compatible with registration of a User Equipment device ("UE") (Step 7, Figure 4, p. 9/21, “Note that the SUPI is not sent to the SEAF in this authentication response. It is only sent to the SEAF after UE authentication succeeds.”).
Lee (Korean Publication No. KR20190018297A) teaches: a “method for negotiating provision function and mapping slice information between network and user equipment in 5G system” (Lee, Title). Lee discloses transmitting the “AMF Slice Capabilities IE . . . [or] the Slice Compatibility indicator” during the initial registration process. For example, “[0096] During the initial registration process, the terminal may transmit a Registration Request message to the AMF including terminal capability information indicating whether the terminal can support the slice function.” (Step 1, Fig. 2g).
So (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0107250) teaches: determine that an AMF slice is not compatible with registration of a User Equipment device ("UE") ([0121] When an AMF receives a Registration request, the AMF may need to reroute the Registration request to another AMF, e.g. when the initial AMF is not the appropriate AMF to serve the UE. The Registration with AMF re-allocation procedure, described in FIG. 4.2.2.2.3-1 of 3GPP TS.23.502, is used to reroute the NAS message of the UE to the target AMF during a Registration procedure. (e.g., generating a Kausf after receiving a slice compatibility indicator)).
Kievit (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0141661) teaches: sending an authentication failed message ([0191]).
The above references, in combination, do not render obvious the claimed invention regarding to details about the generation of a Kausf in response to the slice compatibility indicator having a value that indicates that an AMF slice is not compatible with registration of user equipment, as defined in the most recent remarks, in combination with the claim amendments provided.
For further reasons for allowance, please refer to Applicant remarks on December 15, 2025.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-patent Literature entitled, “A Formal Analysis of 5G Authentication” (Basin)
U.S. Publication No. 2019/0124502 (Zhang) related to key configuration method, security policy determining method, and apparatus
U.S. Publication No. 2020/0137576 (Hu) related to a network slice allocation method, device, and system
U.S. Publication No. 2017/0150355 (Bergius) related to cellular network authentication control
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN BARRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0201. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am EST to 5:00pm 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, Jinsong HU can be reached at (571) 272-3965. 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.
/JAB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643