Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action in response to the Applicant’s Response to Election/Restriction requirement filed on 12/2/2025. Per the Applicant’s response claims 1-21, 27 and 53-72 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 18, 27, 53, 55, and 69 rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thiebaut (US 2023/0362637)
Regarding claim 1, Thiebaut discloses a method performed by a relay user equipment, UE, the method comprising:
receiving a first message conveyed by a remote UE (Thiebaut;
see e.g. [0046] “... The remote UE may provide a request for relaying together with its own identifier (e.g., a subscription concealed identifier (SUCI)) to the relay UE ...”
see e.g. [0048] “ ... As illustrated at 502, the remote UE and the relay UE may perform procedures for PC5 establishment. For example, the remote UE may provide a request to the relay UE for relaying the remote UE. The remote UE may provide an identifier for the remote UE (e.g., a SUCI) to the relay UE ... “
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the request from the remote UE to the relay UE corresponds to the first message conveyed by the remote UE and received by the relay UE); and
sending a second message to a relay access and mobility function, AMF, wherein the second message comprises a UE-to-Network, U2N, connection mapping identification, ID, that identifies the remote UE (Thiebaut;
see e.g. [0046] “... the relay UE may forward this identifier to the network so that the network can authenticate the remote UE ...”
see e.g. [0049] “As illustrated at 504, the relay UE may provide, to the relay AMF, a request for authorization to relay the remote UE. The request may include a non-access stratum (NAS) message. The request may include the identifier for the remote UE (e.g., the SUCI).”
[0048] “As illustrated at 500, the relay UE may perform a registration procedure for the relay UE. At this operation one or more AMFs may have been allocated to the relay UE in the serving network of the relay UE ...”
See e.g. Abstract “... the authentication and authorization, the access and mobility management function (AMF) ...”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the forwarding of the identifier to the AMF for registration procedures constitutes sending a second message to a relay and access mobility AMF ).
Regarding claim 2, Thiebaut discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second message further comprises a subscription concealed identifier, ID, of the remote UE (Thiebaut;
see e.g. [0048] “The remote UE may provide an identifier for the remote UE (e.g., a SUCI) to the relay UE ...”
The SUCI (Subscription Concealed Identifier) under BRI functions at the subscription concealed identifier as claimed.)
Regarding claim 4. Thiebaut discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second message is a relay key request (Thiebaut;
See e.g. [0049] As illustrated at 504, the relay UE may provide, to the relay AMF, a request for authorization to relay the remote UE. The request may include a non-access stratum (NAS) message. The request may include the identifier for the remote UE (e.g., the SUCI)
See e.g. [0048] As illustrated at 500, the relay UE may perform a registration procedure for the relay UE. At this operation one or more AMFs may have been allocated to the relay UE in the serving network of the relay UE. Likewise, one or more AUSFs may have been determined in the home network of the relay UE. As illustrated at 502, the remote UE and the relay UE may perform procedures for PC5 establishment. For example, the remote UE may provide a request to the relay UE for relaying the remote UE. The remote UE may provide an identifier for the remote UE (e.g., a SUCI) to the relay UE. The procedure at 502 may be associated with establishing a PC5 connection to the relay UE.)
Regarding claim 18, Thiebaut disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising assigning the U2N connection mapping ID to the remote UE (Thiebaut discloses assigning the U2N connection mapping ID to the remote UE, as the identifier (SUCI) is provided for the remote UE and used to identify and authenticate the remote UE,and is forwarded within the network in association with that remote UE (see. e.g. [0046], [0048], [0049]).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 53, claim 53 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 55, claim 55 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 69, claim 69 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 18 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 5-6, 9, 13-17, 20, 54, 56-57, 60-61, 64-68, and 71 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Thiebaut in view of Lei (US 20230179997)
Regarding claim 3, Thiebaut discloses the method of claim 2, Thiebaut does not expressly disclose wherein the second message further comprises: a relay service code received in the first message, a nonce received in the first message, or both a relay service code received in the first message and a nonce received in the first message.
However in analogous art Lei discloses:
a relay service code received in the first message (Lei;
See e.g. [0104] “... a random number 1 (nonce_1)...”
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lei’s nonce element. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known element resulting in increased efficiencies of the authentication procedures.
Regarding claim 5. Thiebaut discloses the method of claim 1, Thiebaut does not expressly disclose wherein the first message is a direct communication request, DCR, message.
However Lei discloses:
wherein the first message is a direct communication request, DCR, message (Lei;
see e.g. [266] Step 501: UE 1 sends a direct communication request message ”
)
Regarding claim 6, Thiebaut discloses the method of claim 1, Thiebaut does not expressly disclose further comprising:
receiving a first authentication message conveyed by the relay AMF, wherein the authentication message includes the U2N connection mapping ID that identifies the remote UE; and
sending a second authentication message to the remote UE identified by the U2N connection mapping ID comprised in the first authentication message.
However in analogous art Lei discloses:
Authentication/security-related messages, (Lei; Lei (Fig. 5, Steps 504, 508) discloses transmission of security/authentication-related messages between entities. Lei further teaches that the device performing such functions may be implemented as a core network element including an AMF ([0-159], [0160]). Under BRI such security/ authentication signaling corresponds to authentication messages conveyed by an AMF)
sending a second authentication message to the remote UE (Lei; Lei (Fig. 5 (steps 504[Wingdings font/0xE0]506[Wingdings font/0xE0]508 sequence) discloses forwarding or responding with authentication/security messages)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Lei’s message flow as cited above. The motivation being to apply Lei’s authentication /security message exchange to the relay-based communication of Thiebaut to improve authentication handling efficiency.
Thiebaut in view of Lei disclose:
receiving a first authentication message conveyed by the relay AMF, wherein the authentication message includes the U2N connection mapping ID that identifies the remote UE (The combined solution provides for the conveyed message by the relay AMF comprising Thiebaut’s identifier); and
sending a second authentication message to the remote UE identified by the U2N connection mapping ID comprised in the first authentication message (The combined solution provides for sending a second authentication method identified by Thiebaut’s identifier).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Le’s direct communication request message. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known element resulting in increased efficiencies in facilitating request between two entities.
Regarding claim 9, Thiebaut in view of Lei discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the first authentication message is a relay authentication request (Thiebaut discloses that remote UE transmits a request to a relay UE to initiate a pC5 establishment procedure ([0048]) wherein the procedure includes authentication and/or authorization operations ([0049). Accordingly, the initial request message corresponds to an authentication request, and in the relay architecture constitutes a relay authentication request).
Regarding claim 10, Thiebaut discloses the method of claim 1, Lei does not expressly disclose further comprising:
receiving a third authentication message conveyed by the remote UE; and
sending a fourth authentication message to the relay AM, wherein the fourth authentication message comprises the U2N connection mapping ID that identifies the remote UE.
However in analogous art Lei discloses:
receiving a third authentication message conveyed by the remote UE (Lei; third message in sequence; see e.g. Fig. 5, see e.g. [0159], [0160]))
sending a fourth authentication method to a relay AMF (Lei, Fourth message in the sequence; Message from relay -side entity AMF); see e.g. [0159], [0160]
wherein the fourth authentication message comprises the U2N connection mapping ID that identifies the remote UE (Lei, Fig. 5 signaling messages carrying UE- related identifier information through the procedure; [0159]-[0160] disclose network elements process identifiers associated with the UE)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the multi-step authentication signaling procedure of Lei into the system of Thiebaut. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in robust authentication and session management across relay-based communication architectures
Regarding claim 13, Thiebaut discloses the method of claim 1, Thiebaut does not expressly disclose further comprising:
receiving a relay key response message conveyed by the relay AMF, wherein the relay key response comprises the U2N connection mapping ID that identifies the remote and
sending a message to the remote UE identified by the U2N connection mapping ID comprised in the relay key response message.
However in analogous art Lei discloses:
Receiving a message conveyed from the relay-side/network side entity back toward the UE-side in the authentication/security exchange( Lei, Fig. 5, Step 518; [0159\, [160\ (device may be implemented as a core network element including AMF)
Sending a subsequent message from the relay-side/UE side toward the remote UE in the same message sequence (Lei; Fig. 5, Step 520)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thiebaut to incorporate the return/relay security message sequence of Lei Fig. 5, the motivation being that the combined solution provides for implementing a known authentication /response messaging technique resulting in improved handling of relay-based authentication procedures.
receiving a relay key response message conveyed by the relay AMF, wherein the relay key response comprises the U2N connection mapping ID that identifies the remote (The combined solution provides for the AMF side relay key response message conveyed by the relay AMF, wherein the relay key response message comprises the U2N connection mapping ID that identifies the remote UE ; Lei, Fig. 5 Step 518, comprising Thiebaut’s identifier identifying the remote UE) and
sending a message to the remote UE identified by the U2N connection mapping ID comprised in the relay key response message (The combined solution of Thiebaut in view of Lei provides for sending a message t the remote UE identified by the U2N connection mapping ID comprises in the relay key response message, as Lei discloses transmitting as subsequent message toward the UE in the authentication message sequence ( Fig. 5, Step 520) and Thiebaut discloses identifying the remote UE using the U2N connection mapping ID)
Regarding claim 14, Thiebaut in view of Lei discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the relay key response message further comprises a 5GPRUK ID, a KNR_ProSe, and/or a Nonce_2 (The combined solution provides for the relay key response message further comprising a Nonce_2 as Lei discloses that the direct security mode command message further includes a random number 2 (nonce_2) ([0126]), and the sent message comprises the comprises the 5GPRUK ID and/or the Nonce_2(The combined solution provides for the sent message comprising the Nonce_2, as Lei discloses use of the random number 2 (nonce_2) in the authentication/security message exchange, including transmission in the direct security mode command message (Lei,[0160])
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thiebaut to incorporate the return/relay security message sequence of Lei Fig. 5, the motivation being that the combined solution provides for implementing a known authentication /response messaging technique resulting in improved handling of relay-based authentication procedures.
Regarding claim 15. Thiebaut in view of Lei disclose the method of claim 14, further comprising deriving a PC5 session key Krelay-sess and/or confidentiality and integrity keys from KNR_ProSe (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation , “deriving” encompasses calculating keys from a base key (K.sub.NRP) and confidentiality keys as disclosed in [0126], corresponding to deriving a PC5 session key and confidentiality and integrity keys from KNR_ProSe; see e.g. [0207])
Regarding claim 16, Thiebaut in view of Lei disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the sent message is a direct security mode command (The combined solution per Lei; see e.g. Fig. 5 illustrating the utilization of a direct security mode command).
Regarding claim 17. Thiebaut discloses the method of claim 1, Thiebaut does not expressly disclose further comprising receiving a direct security complete message conveyed by the remote UE.
Lei discloses:
receiving a direct security complete message conveyed by the remote UE (Lei; Fig. 5 illustrates the utilization of a direct security complete message)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thiebaut to incorporate direct security complete message, the motivation being that the combined solution provides for implementing a known authentication /response messaging technique resulting in improved handling of relay-based authentication procedures.
.
Regarding claim 20. Thiebaut discloses the method of claim 1, Thiebaut does not expressly disclose further comprising storing a mapping between the U2N connection mapping ID and an ID of the remote UE.
However in analogous art Lei disclose:
storing a mapping between the U2N connection mapping ID and an ID of the remote UE (Lei; Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, storing context information that includes identifiers associated with communicating UEs constitutes storing a mapping between those identifiers. Lee discloses maintain context information between UE1 and UE2 that includes identifier information for the UEs (see e.g. [0106]), corresponding to U2N connection mapping ID and an identifier of the remote UE).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lei’s context scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of authentication/security procedures.
Regarding claim 54, claim 54 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 56, claim 56 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 5 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 57, claim 57 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 60, claim 60 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 9 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 61, claim 61 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 10 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 64, claim 64 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 13 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 65, claim 65 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 14 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 66, claim 66 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 15 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 67, claim 67 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 16 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 68, claim 68 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 17 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 71, claim 71 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 20 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Claims 7, 11 and 58, 62 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Thiebaut in view of Lei and in further view of Jeong (US 20220329983)
Regarding claim 7. Thiebaut in view of Lei discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the first authentication message further comprises an extensible authentication protocol, EAP, message and/or one or more parameters, and the second authentication message comprises the EAP message and/or the one or more parameters.
However in analogous art Jeong discloses:
an extensible authentication protocol, EAP, message (Jeong;
see e.g. [0067] “... The AMF transfers an EAP message ... to the terminal ..”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thiebaut to incorporate the EAP-based authentication protocol (EAP) to the authentication message exchange in order to improve interoperability and standard-compliant authentication handling.
Thiebaut in view of Lei and in further view of Jeong disclose:
, wherein the first authentication message further comprises an extensible authentication protocol, EAP, message and/or one or more parameters (The combined solution provides for implementing the authentication message exchange of Lei using EAP based messages as taught by Jeong), and
the second authentication message comprises the EAP message and/or the one or more parameters (The combined solution provides for transmitting a responsive authentication message using EAP as taught by Jeong to the remote UE in the message exchange sequence).
Regarding claim 11. Thiebaut in view of Lei discloses the method of claim 10, the combined solution does not expressly disclose wherein the third authentication message comprises an extensible authentication protocol, EAP, message and/or one or more parameters, and the fourth authentication message comprises the EAP message and/or the one or more parameters.
However in analogous art Jeong discloses:
However in analogous art Jeong discloses:
an extensible authentication protocol, EAP, message (Jeong;
see e.g. [0067] “... The AMF transfers an EAP message ... to the terminal ..”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined solution to incorporate the EAP-based authentication protocol (EAP) to the authentication message exchange in order to improve interoperability and standard-compliant authentication handling.
Thiebaut in view of Lei and in further view of Jeong disclose:
wherein the third authentication message comprises an extensible authentication protocol, EAP, message and/or one or more parameters (The combined solution per Jeong’s EAP messaging), and the fourth authentication message comprises the EAP message and/or the one or more parameters ((The combined solution per Jeong’s EAP messaging))
Regarding claim 58, claim 58 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Regarding claim 62, claim 62 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 11 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Claims 8, 12, 59, and 63 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Thiebaut in view of Lei and in further view of Wu (US 2022/0322194)
Regarding claim 8, Thiebaut in view of Lei discloses The method of claim 6, the combined solution does not expressly disclose wherein the second authentication message is a PC5-S message.
However in analogous art Wu discloses:
authentication message is a PC5-S message (Wu;
see e.g. [0185] “... a PC5-S message to the relay UE ...”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wu’s PC5-S message. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of authentications/security procedures.
Thiebaut in view of Lei and in further view of Wu discloses:
wherein the second authentication message is a PC5-S message (The combined solution provides for the second authentication message being implemented as a PC5-S message)
Regarding claim 12. Thiebaut in view of Lei disclose The method of claim 10, the combined solution does not expressly disclose wherein the third authentication message is a PC5-S message.
However in analogous art Wu discloses:
authentication message is a PC5-S message (Wu;
see e.g. [0185] “... a PC5-S message to the relay UE ...”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wu’s PC5-S message. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of authentications/security procedures.
Thiebaut in view of Lei and in further view of Wu discloses:
wherein the third authentication message is a PC5-S message(The combined solution provides for the third authentication message being implemented as a PC5-S message)
.Regarding claim 59, claim 59 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 8 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
.Regarding claim 63, claim 63 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 12 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims19 and 70 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Thiebaut in view of Kim
Regarding claim 19, Thiebaut discloses the method of claim 1, Thiebaut does not expressly disclose wherein the U2N connection mapping ID is a temporary ID.
Kim discloses:
a temporary ID (Kim ;
see e.g. [0422] “... Globally Unique Temporary Identifier (GUTI) ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kim’s temporary ID. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of authentication/security procedures.
.Regarding claim 70, claim 70 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 19 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 21 and 72 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Thiebaut in view of Lei and in further view of Kim
Regarding claim 21, Thiebaut in view of Lei disclose the method of claim 20, Thiebaut does not expressly disclose wherein the ID of the remote UE is a Layer-2 ID of the remote UE.
Kim discloses:
ID of the remote UE is a Layer-2 ID of the remote UE (Kim;
See e.g. [0197] “... [0199] a link layer identifier (i.e., layer 2 ID ) ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kim’s layer 2 ID. The motivation being the combined solution provides for increased efficiencies in security/authentication procedures.
.Regarding claim 72, claim 72 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 21 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 1 and 27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Thiebaut
Regarding claim 1. Kim discloses a method performed by a relay user equipment, UE, the method comprising:
receiving a first message conveyed by a remote UE (Kim; Kim discloses receiving a first message conveyed by a remote UE;
se e.g. [0798] “The remote UE transmits an SL message including a Registration Request message including a MICO indication to a relay UE (step 0-A) ... “); and
sending a second message to a relay access and mobility function, AMF (Kim; Subsequently the message is forwarded to an AMF ;
see e.g. [0798] “... the relay UE transmits an RRC message including the Registration Request message including the MICO indication to a gNB (step 0-B), and the gNB transmits an N2 message including the Registration Request message including the MICO indication to a AMF 2 of the remote UE (step 0-C) ...”),
Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the second message comprises a UE-to-Network, U2N, connection mapping identification, ID, that identifies the remote UE.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an identifier identifying the remote UE in the message transmitted ot the AMF,as Kim discloses the use of UE identifiers, including a layer 2 ID (see e.g. [0807]), thereby indicating that identifiers are used to identify UEs in the communication system.
As evidence of the rationale above, Thiebaut discloses:
sending a second message to a relay access and mobility function, AMF, wherein the second message comprises a UE-to-Network, U2N, connection mapping identification, ID, that identifies the remote UE (Thiebaut;
see e.g. [0046] “... the relay UE may forward this identifier to the network so that the network can authenticate the remote UE ...”
see e.g. [0049] “As illustrated at 504, the relay UE may provide, to the relay AMF, a request for authorization to relay the remote UE. The request may include a non-access stratum (NAS) message. The request may include the identifier for the remote UE (e.g., the SUCI).”
[0048] “As illustrated at 500, the relay UE may perform a registration procedure for the relay UE. At this operation one or more AMFs may have been allocated to the relay UE in the serving network of the relay UE ...”
See e.g. Abstract “... the authentication and authorization, the access and mobility management function (AMF) ...”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the forwarding of the identifier to the AMF for registration procedures constitutes sending a second message to a relay and access mobility AMF )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an identifier identifying the remote UE in the message of Kim with Thiebaut’s identification scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of registration and authentication procedures within the network,
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449