Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2022/0030495 to Qiao in view of U.S. Pub. 2012/0210397 to Suh and U.S. Pub. 2020/0344604 to He.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Qiao teaches a method of a communication apparatus comprising:
performing a registration procedure to a first Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) for a user equipment (UE); (see RAN 105/new AMF in Fig. 8 which receive and forward a registration request 805/810 from the UE, as described in sections [0198] to [0199], where the UE indicates the selected PLMN in the AN message (as AN parameters));
sending a first message to perform an authentication for the UE, wherein the first message includes an identifier of the first PLMN (see the Authentication and security messages 830 sent from the RAN node/AMF (which are for requesting and accepting authentication as described in sections [0199] to [0209], [0306] and [0331]).
Although Qiao teaches including the PLMN in registration messages but does not explicitly teach including the PLMN in the authentication messages 830, Suh is added.
In an analogous art, Suh teaches a system which registers and authenticates UEs. As shown in Fig. 4 and as described in section [0054], Suh explicitly teaches that an authentication request message (441) is sent to the UE which includes the PLMN.
Therefore, as both these references teach registering and authenticating UEs and both references teach including the selected PLMN in these messages, it would have been obvious to modify the authentication messages of Qiao to also include the selected PLMN identifier, as Qiao teaches the benefits and conventionality of including the PLMN in these types of messages, as identifying the selected PLMN network for registration and authentication is beneficial when handing over between a number of different networks.
Regarding the remaining steps of claim 1,
performing a handover procedure with a change from the first PLMN to a second PLMN for the UE (see Fig. 14 of Qiao, begins in section [0272] with an assessment that the previously registered network (PLMN 2) has failed, so a handover is required to a new PLMN, which in the example described in Fig. 14, the new network is PLMN 1);
receiving a second message, wherein the second message includes the identifier of the first PLMN (see section [0286], which teaches that the UE sends a registration message which includes both the current PLMN 1 and the “disaster PLMN”, where the disaster PLMN is “PLMN 2”, which was/is the recited “first PLMN”); and
sending an authentication request message to the UE, wherein the authentication request message includes the identifier of the first PLMN (see the messages sent from the RAN node/AMF (which are for requesting and accepting the UE authentication), which include identifiers of the PLMN as described in sections [0286] to [0289] of Qiao, as modified by Suh, where Suh explicitly teaches including the PLMN in the authentication request message to the UE.
Therefore, the combination of Qiao modified by Suh, teach the recited features.
Regarding the amendments which now recite “the first message is sent to an AUSF” and “the second message is received from the AUSF”, see section [0186] of Qiao, which teaches that the AMF may forward the UE registration request to an AUSF.
Therefore, in order to show an AUSF communicating with an AMF (and also including message sent to/from the AUSF which include a PLMN ID), the He reference is added.
In an analogous art, He teaches a system which registers and authenticates UEs. As shown in Fig. 3a and as described in sections [0155] to [0159], He teaches that the AMF sends an authentication request message to the AUSF which includes the PLMN and then subsequently after successful registration the AUSF sends a message including the PLMN.
Therefore, as Qiao and He teach AMFs registering and authenticating UEs which include messages sent to and received from the AUSF, and as both references teach including the selected PLMN in these messages, it would have been obvious to modify the authentication messages to/from the AMF and AUSF of Qiao to include the selected PLMN identifier, as He teaches the benefits and conventionality of including the PLMN in these types of messages to/from the AUSF, as identifying the selected PLMN network for registration and authentication is beneficial when handing over between different networks.
Regarding claim 2 which recites “further comprising: receiving a third message indicating that the authentication is completed; and sending an identifier of the second PLMN to a Unified Data Management (UDM) to update the identifier of the first PLMN”, see for example, section [0305] of Qiao, which teaches “In response to the message (recited “third message”) received from the RAN 1, the AMF 1 make take one or more actions. In an example action, the AMF 1 may send to the UDM 2 of the second PLMN a message (e.g. subscription request) requesting the subscription information of UE 2. The subscription request message may comprise at least one of: the UE identity, selected PLMN ID (e.g. the identifier of the serving PLMN/PLMN 1), and/or the identifier of the home PLMN/second PLMN/disaster PLMN”.
Claim 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2015/0282044 to Balasbramanian.
Regarding claim 21, which recites “further comprising checking whether a Mobile Country Code (MCC) and a Mobile Network Code (MNC) of an identifier of the second PLMN are same to a MCC and a MNC of a 5G Globally Unique Temporary Identifier (5G-GUTI) in case where the UE has the 5G-GUTI; and performing the authentication procedure based on the MCC and the MNC of the 5G-GUTI in a case where the MCC and the MNC of the identifier of the second PLMN are not same to the MCC and the MNC of the 5G-GUTI”, see for example, sections [0199] and [0202] of Qiao, which teaches that the 5G-GUTI is invalid or not the same, so re-registration and authentication is performed. See also sections [0286], [0303] and [0329] of Qiao which teach using UE IDs such as IMSI, TMSI and GUAMI. Therefore, as Qiao does not teach comparing the MCC and the MNC, Balasbramanian is added.
In an analogous art, Balasbramanian teaches a system which registers and authenticates roaming UEs. As described in section [0074], Balasbramanian teaches that the MCC and the MNC are compared to the UE ID (IMSI) when switching PLMNs.
Therefore, as Qiao teaches using the 5G-GUTI in the processes of registering and authenticating UEs when switching PLMNs (and reauthenticating when the 5G-GUTI does not match), and as Balasbramanian teaches comparing the MCC and the MNC of PLMNs when handing over UEs, it would have been obvious to modify the authentication process of Qiao to also include the MCC and the MNC of the 5G-GUTI, as both references teach scenarios when UE IDs and/or 5G-GUTIs may or may not be available and/or match, as it is conventional to perform authentication when the UE information is different, for security reasons when handing over between networks.
Regarding claim 23 which recites “further comprising: receiving a third message including an identifier of the second PLMN; and checking whether a Mobile country code Country Code (MCC) and a Mobile Network Code (MNC) of the identifier of the second PLMN are same to a MCC and a MNC of a 5G Globally Unique Temporary Identifier (5G-GUTI) in case where the communication apparatus has the 5G-GUTI; and sending a fourth message to authenticate the UE in a case where the MCC and the MNC of the identifier of the second PLMN are not same to the MCC and the MNC of the 5G-GUTI, wherein the fourth message includes the identifier of the second PLMN”, as described above, the combination of Qiao and Balasbramanian would teach and/or render obvious this feature. For example, Qiao teaches in sections [0199] and [0202] that the 5G-GUTI is invalid or not the same, so re-registration and authentication is performed, sections [0286], [0303] and [0329] of Qiao teach using UE IDs such as IMSI, TMSI and GUAMI when switching PLMNs, and section [0305] of Qiao, teaches “In response to the message…” (recited “third message”), see also section [0074] of Balasbramanian which teaches that the MCC and the MNC are compared to the UE ID (IMSI) when switching PLMNs. Therefore, the teachings of Qiao modified by the teachings of Balasbramanian would render obvious the feature of claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are now moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Matt Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646