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 August 27, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 and 28 are pending in the application. Applicant has submitted amendments to the claims along with other remarks. Claims 1-19 and 28 are still rejected by prior art references, refer to the following rejection for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pp. 8-12 of the response, filed August 27, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 and 28 under § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding priority, a copy of the of the international application PCT/CN2021/075797 was filed on May 11, 2023 in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(2).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has underlined portions of claim 1 in the Remarks, p. 9, for emphasis. Claim 1 is not amended.
Applicant states that Ninglekhu fails to disclose or suggest “determining whether a disconnection between the first and second maritime vessels is to occur” while also suggesting that “Ninglekhu describes when to send new policies to a UE based on predictions of where the UE will be at future times.” Remarks at 10. Applicant alleges that the distinction between the pending claim and Ninglekhu is that “nowhere in Ninglekhu is it disclosed or suggest that there is a determination whether a disconnection . . . is to occur.”
Examiner agrees with Applicant that the term “disconnect” is not present in Ninglekhu. However, the new policies sent to a UE based on predictions of where the UE will be at future times teaches “determining whether a disconnection between the first and second maritime vessels is to occur” because those policies include a “new . . . URSP rule from the network when it enters a certain area or is about to enter a certain area” ([0566]). The User Equipment Routing Selection Policy (URSP) automatically and dynamically selects the best network connection. The URSP can check the existing connection, make new connections, and handle connection successes/failures. Ninglekhu states that “Thus, it is proposed that the UE Configuration Update command indicate to the UE when the updates rules should be enabled or indicate to the UE that the rules should not be enabled until the UE enters a certain location” ([0566]).
Ninglekhu teaches sending information based on the predictions in a broader set of circumstances that imply the recited “disconnection.” That is, Ninglekhu teaches improving QoS and QoE, which includes disconnections, and many other topics to improve network connectivity ([0464], [0466]). In [0566] Ninglekhu teaches: “When new policies are sent to the UE the policies may relate to ongoing application traffic. For example, the UE may receive a UE Configuration Update message with a new, or updated, or deleted, URSP rule from the network when it enters a certain area or is about to enter a certain area.” These URSP rules are defined in [0508] as “based on the UE's number of out-of-coverage entries, a change in location where a change of location may be defined as being a change in one or more of the following: PLMN, TS, or Cells, or a change in validity area where a change of validity area may be defined as being a change in one or more of the following: list of PLMN, list of TA, list of Cells.” These “changes” between cells would be considered disconnections under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-10, 13-19, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0272620 (hereinafter “Ninglekhu”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0026450 (hereinafter “Egner”)
Regarding claim 1, --Ninglekhu teaches: A method performed by a management server, comprising: predicting future locations of a plurality of maritime vessels ([0050] a drone, a vehicle such as a car, bus or truck, a train, or an airplane, and the like) based on historical status information of the plurality of maritime vessels, wherein the plurality of maritime vessels comprise a first maritime vessel and a second maritime vessel, and the first maritime vessel is communicatively connected to a terrestrial network via the second maritime vessel (FIG. 1E, [0564] This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.); determining whether a disconnection between the first and second maritime vessels is to occur, based on the predicted future locations of the first and second maritime vessels ([0103-104] WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other directly via a Sidelink (PC5 or NR PC5) interface 125 a, 125b, 128, if they are under or out of the access network coverage (e.g., A, C, WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other D and E are shown out of the network coverage in FIG. 1E)), [0561] How the Network Determines when to Send Policies to the UE, [0562-563] This section describes solutions for how determines, or anticipates, that the UE will need new policies. Furthermore, this section describes how the UE may handle the case where it receives policies that related to traffic that is already ongoing. As previously discussed, the policies that are needed by the UE may depend on the UE's location however, it might not be ideal to wait until a UE is in a location until sending it a new, or updated, policy. [0564] . . . This service can provide the PCF with predictions of where the UE will be at future times. Reference TS 23.288, incorporated herein by reference, describes how this procedure may be invoked by an NF. This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.); in response to determining that the disconnection is to occur, obtaining, from the first maritime vessel, security related information of the first maritime vessel before the disconnection occurs ([0564] One way to address this issue is for the PCF to invoke the Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription (type=UE mobility information) service. This service can provide the PCF with predictions of where the UE will be at future times. Reference TS 23.288, incorporated herein by reference, describes how this procedure may be invoked by an NF. This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.); and when the first maritime vessel reconnects to the terrestrial network, performing a first authorization process for the first maritime vessel based on the obtained security related information of the first maritime vessel ([0243] This procedure can be invoked for a supporting UE by an AMF at any time, e.g. when [0244] The UE registers with the AMF and one of the S-NSSAIs of the HPLMN which maps to a S-NSSAI in the Requested NSSAI is requiring Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization (see clause 5.15.5.2.1 for details); or [0245] The Network Slice-Specific AAA Server triggers a UE re-authentication and authorization for a S-NSSAI; or [0246] The AMF, based on operator policy or a subscription change, decides to initiate the Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization procedure for a certain S-NSSAI which was previously authorised. [0250], [0565]).
Ninglekhu discloses sending PCF information that may be associated with a SUPI ([0348], [0350], [0565] Application Data may be enhanced to include anticipated, or future locations, of the UE. The AF may then configure the UDR (via the NEF) with anticipated, or future locations, of the UE by writing to the UE's Application Data (using Internal Group Identifier or SUPI as a Data Key).). Although a SUPI may be considered a security credential, Ninglekhu does not indisputably disclose “security related information of the first maritime vessel” and “based on the obtained security related information of the first maritime vessel.”
Egner discloses an optimized access of security credentials via mobile edge-computing systems (Title). Egner discloses “estimating the future location of a subscribing client and provisioning that subscribing client's credentials to a trusted mobile edge authentication system device servicing the area surrounding the estimated future location..” ([0020]). Egner also teaches “only granting access to clients providing correct credentials” ([0086]).
Thus, Ninglekhu and Egner each disclose transmitting parameters in anticipation of attaching to a new access point. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the credentials of Egner could have been substituted for the PCF policy because both perform the function of controlling/enabling the user equipment on the future access point. 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 authenticating, or re-authenticating, user equipment using the methods known in Egner.
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 transmission of access credentials in Egner for the parameter transmission in Ninglekhu according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing parameters for enforcing security policies and access.
Regarding claim 2, Ninglekhu teaches: further comprising: in response to determining that the disconnection is to occur, determining , from the plurality of maritime vessels, a third maritime vessel via which the first maritime vessel can reconnect to the terrestrial network, based on the predicted future locations of the plurality of maritime vessels ([0103] WTRUs A, B, and C form a V2X group, among which WTRU A is the group lead and WTRUs B and C are group members.); and sending identification information of the third maritime vessel to the first maritime vessel ([0369], [0501]).
Regarding claim 3, Ninglekhu teaches: wherein the security related information of the first maritime vessel comprises authorization information of the first maritime vessel; and wherein performing the first authorization process for the first maritime vessel comprises: verifying whether the obtained authorization information of the first maritime vessel is still valid; and when the obtained authorization information of the first maritime vessel is still valid, sending, to the first maritime vessel, the obtained authorization information of the first maritime vessel ([0238] Reference TS 23.287 describes a UE triggered V2X policy provisioning procedure. FIG. 16 illustrates a policy provisioning procedure 1600. Steps 1601-1602 may be triggered by the UE if the validity timer for the V2X Policy/Parameter expires or if there are no valid parameters, e.g., for current area, or due to abnormal situation. Step 1603 is the same UE Configuration Update procedure for transparent UE policy delivery” procedure that was previously discussed.).
Regarding claim 4, Ninglekhu does not teach: wherein the security related information of the first maritime vessel comprises authentication information of the first maritime vessel; and wherein performing the first authorization process for the first maritime vessel comprises: receiving , from the first maritime vessel, a request for authorization of the first maritime vessel, wherein the request comprises identity proof information of the first maritime vessel; and verifying the identity proof information of the first maritime vessel based on the obtained authentication information of the first maritime vessel.
However, Egner teaches: wherein the security related information of the first maritime vessel comprises authentication information of the first maritime vessel; and wherein performing the first authorization process for the first maritime vessel comprises: receiving , from the first maritime vessel, a request for authorization of the first maritime vessel, wherein the request comprises identity proof information of the first maritime vessel; and verifying the identity proof information of the first maritime vessel based on the obtained authentication information of the first maritime vessel ([0018] In embodiments of the present disclosure, the authentication server may generate, maintain and/or provision an optimal mobile edge-authentication system with subscribing client security credentials. The mobile edge-authentication (MEA) system, such as a designated MEC system, in an embodiment may use the provisioned subscribing client security credentials to positively identify a requesting information handling system as belonging to the verified subscribing user, and identify an optimal mobile edge-computing system.).
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 Ninglekhu to include the feature of identity proof verification and a combination of Ninglekhu with Egner 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., identity proof verification).
Regarding claim 5, Ninglekhu teaches: wherein the plurality of maritime vessels comprise one or more fourth maritime vessels which are communicatively connected to the terrestrial network via the first maritime vessel; and wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the disconnection is to occur, obtaining security related information (FIG. 1E, [0564] This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.) of the one or more fourth maritime vessels ([0104] WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other over a Uu interface 129b via the gNB 121 if they are under the access network coverage (only B and F are shown under the network coverage in FIG. 1E). WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other directly via a Sidelink (PC5 or NR PC5) interface 125 a, 125b, 128, if they are under or out of the access network coverage (e.g., A, C, WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other D and E are shown out of the network coverage in FIG. 1E)) before the disconnection occurs ([0564] One way to address this issue is for the PCF to invoke the Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription (type=UE mobility information) service. This service can provide the PCF with predictions of where the UE will be at future times. Reference TS 23.288, incorporated herein by reference, describes how this procedure may be invoked by an NF. This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.); and when at least one of the more or more fourth maritime vessels reconnects to the terrestrial network via the first maritime vessel, performing a second authorization process for the at least one fourth maritime vessel based on the obtained security related information of the at least one fourth maritime vessel ([0243] This procedure can be invoked for a supporting UE by an AMF at any time, e.g. when [0244] The UE registers with the AMF and one of the S-NSSAIs of the HPLMN which maps to a S-NSSAI in the Requested NSSAI is requiring Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization (see clause 5.15.5.2.1 for details); or [0245] The Network Slice-Specific AAA Server triggers a UE re-authentication and authorization for a S-NSSAI; or [0246] The AMF, based on operator policy or a subscription change, decides to initiate the Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization procedure for a certain S-NSSAI which was previously authorised. [0250], [0565]).
Regarding claim 6, Ninglekhu teaches: wherein the security related information of the one or more fourth maritime vessels comprises authorization information of the one or more fourth maritime vessels; and wherein performing the second authorization process for the at least one fourth maritime vessel comprises: verifying whether the obtained authorization information of the at least one fourth maritime vessel is still valid; and when the obtained authorization information of the at least one fourth maritime vessel is still valid, sending , to the first maritime vessel, a grant for restoring a secure connection between the first maritime vessel and the at least one fourth maritime vessel ([0238] Reference TS 23.287 describes a UE triggered V2X policy provisioning procedure. FIG. 16 illustrates a policy provisioning procedure 1600. Steps 1601-1602 may be triggered by the UE if the validity timer for the V2X Policy/Parameter expires or if there are no valid parameters, e.g., for current area, or due to abnormal situation. Step 1603 is the same UE Configuration Update procedure for transparent UE policy delivery” procedure that was previously discussed.).
Regarding claim 7, Ninglekhu does not teach: wherein the identity proof information of the first maritime vessel comprises: a digital signature signed by the first maritime vessel.
However, Egner teaches: wherein the identity proof information of the first maritime vessel comprises: a digital signature signed by the first maritime vessel ([0050] The authentication server 222 in an embodiment may also operate to issue personal authorization credential records to valid MEA system nodes, and encryption tokens to authenticated subscribers and authenticated subscriber information handling systems. The authentication server 222 in an embodiment may encrypt and decrypt the stored block chains for each subscriber according to the issued personal authorization credential records and encryption tokens. In order to gain access to the subscriber's nomadic computing services, a mobile edge-computing device in an embodiment may first require the client information handling system requesting access to show it is in use by the authorized subscriber.).
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 Ninglekhu to include the feature of identity proof verification and a combination of Ninglekhu with Egner 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., identity proof verification).
Regarding claim 8, Ninglekhu does not teach: wherein there is a chain of maritime vessels including the first maritime vessel and an anchor maritime vessel directly connected to the terrestrial network; and wherein the security related information of each maritime vessel on the chain is contained in a block body of a corresponding block of a blockchain, and a block header of the corresponding block contains a hash value of a previous block header.
However, Egner teaches: wherein there is a chain of maritime vessels including the first maritime vessel and an anchor maritime vessel directly connected to the terrestrial network; and wherein the security related information of each maritime vessel on the chain is contained in a block body of a corresponding block of a blockchain, and a block header of the corresponding block contains a hash value of a previous block header ([0022] When the subscribing client requests access to the nomadic computing resources in an embodiment, the mobile edge computing system, such as the MEA system, serving as a hub to determine an optimal MEC system for edge computing may receive a broadcast encrypted historical trust reference blocks from each of several mobile edge compute system devices operating within a preset range of the estimated future location. The security credential provisioning system in an embodiment may the access the encrypted historical trust reference block chains for each of the candidate MECs to determine an optimal mobile edge computing partner for the requested access, which may be associated with a highest historical trust reference, an availability of the most computing resources, a minimum threshold historical trust reference, a minimum threshold computing resources, or a combination of any of these factors. [0035] The disk drive unit 116 and the security credential provisioning system 132 may include a com.).
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 Ninglekhu to include the feature of security information in a blockchain and a combination of Ninglekhu with Egner 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., security information in a blockchain).
Regarding claim 9, Ninglekhu does not teach: wherein identity proof information of a maritime vessel on the chain comprises: a block header of a corresponding block of the blockchain.
However, Egner teaches: wherein identity proof information of a maritime vessel on the chain comprises: a block header of a corresponding block of the blockchain (FIG. 6, column header “security and performance history address).
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 Ninglekhu to include the feature of security information in a blockchain and a combination of Ninglekhu with Egner 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., security information in a blockchain).
Regarding claim 10, --Ninglekhu teaches: wherein the future locations of the plurality of maritime vessels are predicted by using a mobility tracking process ([0564] One way to address this issue is for the PCF to invoke the Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription (type=UE mobility information) service. This service can provide the PCF with predictions of where the UE will be at future times. Reference TS 23.288, incorporated herein by reference, describes how this procedure may be invoked by an NF.).
Regarding claim 14, --Ninglekhu teaches: A method performed by a first server on a first maritime vessel, wherein the first maritime vessel is communicatively connected to a terrestrial network via a second maritime vessel ([0103-104] WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other directly via a Sidelink (PC5 or NR PC5) interface 125 a, 125b, 128, if they are under or out of the access network coverage (e.g., A, C, WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other D and E are shown out of the network coverage in FIG. 1E)), [0561] How the Network Determines when to Send Policies to the UE, [0562-563] This section describes solutions for how determines, or anticipates, that the UE will need new policies. Furthermore, this section describes how the UE may handle the case where it receives policies that related to traffic that is already ongoing. As previously discussed, the policies that are needed by the UE may depend on the UE's location however, it might not be ideal to wait until a UE is in a location until sending it a new, or updated, policy. [0564] . . . This service can provide the PCF with predictions of where the UE will be at future times. Reference TS 23.288, incorporated herein by reference, describes how this procedure may be invoked by an NF. This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.), the method comprising: in response to a trigger event indicating that a disconnection between the first and second maritime vessels is to occur , providing , to a management server, security related information of the first maritime vessel before the disconnection occurs ([0564] One way to address this issue is for the PCF to invoke the Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription (type=UE mobility information) service. This service can provide the PCF with predictions of where the UE will be at future times. Reference TS 23.288, incorporated herein by reference, describes how this procedure may be invoked by an NF. This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.); and when the first maritime vessel reconnects to the terrestrial network, sending , to the management server, a request for authorization of the first maritime vessel ([0243] This procedure can be invoked for a supporting UE by an AMF at any time, e.g. when [0244] The UE registers with the AMF and one of the S-NSSAIs of the HPLMN which maps to a S-NSSAI in the Requested NSSAI is requiring Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization (see clause 5.15.5.2.1 for details); or [0245] The Network Slice-Specific AAA Server triggers a UE re-authentication and authorization for a S-NSSAI; or [0246] The AMF, based on operator policy or a subscription change, decides to initiate the Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization procedure for a certain S-NSSAI which was previously authorised. [0250], [0565]); and receiving , from the management server, a response to the request ([0244] After a successful or unsuccessful UE Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization, the UE context in the AMF shall retain the authentication and authorization status for the UE for the related specific S-NSSAI of the HPLMN the UE remains RM-REGISTERED in the PLMN, so that the AMF may not be required to execute a Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization for a UE at every periodic or mobility Registration procedure with the PLMN.).
Ninglekhu discloses sending PCF information that may be associated with a SUPI ([0348], [0350], [0565] Application Data may be enhanced to include anticipated, or future locations, of the UE. The AF may then configure the UDR (via the NEF) with anticipated, or future locations, of the UE by writing to the UE's Application Data (using Internal Group Identifier or SUPI as a Data Key).). Although a SUPI may be considered a security credential, Ninglekhu does not explicitly disclose “security related information of the first maritime vessel” and “based on the obtained security related information of the first maritime vessel.”
Egner discloses an optimized access of security credentials via mobile edge-computing systems (Title). Egner discloses “estimating the future location of a subscribing client and provisioning that subscribing client's credentials to a trusted mobile edge authentication system device servicing the area surrounding the estimated future location..” ([0020]). Egner also teaches “only granting access to clients providing correct credentials” ([0086]).
Thus, Ninglekhu and Egner each disclose transmitting parameters in anticipation of attaching to a new access point. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the credentials of Egner could have been substituted for the PCF policy because both perform the function of controlling/enabling the user equipment on the future access point. 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 authenticating, or re-authenticating, user equipment using the methods known in Egner.
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 transmission of access credentials in Egner for the parameter transmission in Ninglekhu according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing parameters for enforcing security policies and access.
Regarding claim 15, Ninglekhu teaches: further comprising: in response to the trigger event, receiving, from the management server, identification information of a third maritime vessel via which the first maritime vessel can reconnect to the terrestrial network ([0103] WTRUs A, B, and C form a V2X group, among which WTRU A is the group lead and WTRUs B and C are group members, [0369], [0501]).
Regarding claim 16, Ninglekhu teaches: wherein the security related information of the first maritime vessel comprises authorization information of the first maritime vessel; and wherein the response to the request comprises the authorization information of the first maritime vessel that is provided to the management server by the first server ([0238] Reference TS 23.287 describes a UE triggered V2X policy provisioning procedure. FIG. 16 illustrates a policy provisioning procedure 1600. Steps 1601-1602 may be triggered by the UE if the validity timer for the V2X Policy/Parameter expires or if there are no valid parameters, e.g., for current area, or due to abnormal situation. Step 1603 is the same UE Configuration Update procedure for transparent UE policy delivery” procedure that was previously discussed.).
Regarding claim 17, Ninglekhu does not teach: wherein the security related information of the first maritime vessel comprises authentication information of the first maritime vessel; and wherein the request comprises identity proof information of the first maritime vessel.
However, Egner teaches: wherein the security related information of the first maritime vessel comprises authentication information of the first maritime vessel; and wherein the request comprises identity proof information of the first maritime vessel ([0018] In embodiments of the present disclosure, the authentication server may generate, maintain and/or provision an optimal mobile edge-authentication system with subscribing client security credentials. The mobile edge-authentication (MEA) system, such as a designated MEC system, in an embodiment may use the provisioned subscribing client security credentials to positively identify a requesting information handling system as belonging to the verified subscribing user, and identify an optimal mobile edge-computing system.).
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 Ninglekhu to include the feature of identity proof verification and a combination of Ninglekhu with Egner 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., identity proof verification).
Regarding claim 18, Ninglekhu teaches: wherein one or more fourth maritime vessels are communicatively connected to the terrestrial network via the first maritime vessel; and wherein the method further comprises: in response to the trigger event, providing security related information of the one or more fourth maritime vessels to the management server (FIG. 1E, [0564] This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.) of the one or more fourth maritime vessels ([0104] WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other over a Uu interface 129b via the gNB 121 if they are under the access network coverage (only B and F are shown under the network coverage in FIG. 1E). WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other directly via a Sidelink (PC5 or NR PC5) interface 125 a, 125b, 128, if they are under or out of the access network coverage (e.g., A, C, WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other D and E are shown out of the network coverage in FIG. 1E)) before the disconnection occurs ([0564] One way to address this issue is for the PCF to invoke the Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription (type=UE mobility information) service. This service can provide the PCF with predictions of where the UE will be at future times. Reference TS 23.288, incorporated herein by reference, describes how this procedure may be invoked by an NF. This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates; [0243] This procedure can be invoked for a supporting UE by an AMF at any time, e.g. when [0244] The UE registers with the AMF and one of the S-NSSAIs of the HPLMN which maps to a S-NSSAI in the Requested NSSAI is requiring Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization (see clause 5.15.5.2.1 for details); or [0245] The Network Slice-Specific AAA Server triggers a UE re-authentication and authorization for a S-NSSAI; or [0246] The AMF, based on operator policy or a subscription change, decides to initiate the Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization procedure for a certain S-NSSAI which was previously authorised. [0250], [0565]).
Regarding claim 19, Ninglekhu teaches: wherein the request further indicates that at least one of the more or more fourth maritime vessels requires authorization by the management server ([0483] The registration request may trigger a slice-specific secondary authentication and authorization procedure. The network device may transmit the capability request to the apparatus according to the slice-specific secondary authentication and authorization procedure.).
Regarding claim 28, --Ninglekhu teaches: A management server comprising: at least one processor ; and at least one memory , the at least one memory containing instructions executable by the at least one processor (2010), whereby the management server is operative to: predict future locations of a plurality of maritime vessels ([0050] a drone, a vehicle such as a car, bus or truck, a train, or an airplane, and the like) based on historical status information of the plurality of maritime vessels, wherein the plurality of maritime vessels comprise a first maritime vessel and a second maritime vessel, and the first maritime vessel is communicatively connected to a terrestrial network via the second maritime vessel (FIG. 1E, [0564] This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.); determine whether a disconnection between the first and second maritime vessels is to occur, based on the predicted future locations of the first and second maritime vessels ([0103-104] WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other directly via a Sidelink (PC5 or NR PC5) interface 125 a, 125b, 128, if they are under or out of the access network coverage (e.g., A, C, WTRUs A, B, C, D, E, F may communicate with each other D and E are shown out of the network coverage in FIG. 1E)), [0561] How the Network Determines when to Send Policies to the UE, [0562-563] This section describes solutions for how determines, or anticipates, that the UE will need new policies. Furthermore, this section describes how the UE may handle the case where it receives policies that related to traffic that is already ongoing. As previously discussed, the policies that are needed by the UE may depend on the UE's location however, it might not be ideal to wait until a UE is in a location until sending it a new, or updated, policy. [0564] . . . This service can provide the PCF with predictions of where the UE will be at future times. Reference TS 23.288, incorporated herein by reference, describes how this procedure may be invoked by an NF. This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.); in response to determining that the disconnection is to occur, obtain, from the first maritime vessel, security related information of the first maritime vessel before the disconnection occurs ([0564] One way to address this issue is for the PCF to invoke the Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription (type=UE mobility information) service. This service can provide the PCF with predictions of where the UE will be at future times. Reference TS 23.288, incorporated herein by reference, describes how this procedure may be invoked by an NF. This service may be used by the PCF to periodically obtain predictions of the UE's future locations and the PCF may use these predictions to determine what policies to send to the UE and what policies to update on the UE as well as when to send the new policies or updates.); and when the first maritime vessel reconnects to the terrestrial network, perform a first authorization process for the first maritime vessel based on the obtained security related information of the first maritime vessel ([0243] This procedure can be invoked for a supporting UE by an AMF at any time, e.g. when [0244] The UE registers with the AMF and one of the S-NSSAIs of the HPLMN which maps to a S-NSSAI in the Requested NSSAI is requiring Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization (see clause 5.15.5.2.1 for details); or [0245] The Network Slice-Specific AAA Server triggers a UE re-authentication and authorization for a S-NSSAI; or [0246] The AMF, based on operator policy or a subscription change, decides to initiate the Network Slice-Specific Secondary authentication and authorization procedure for a certain S-NSSAI which was previously authorised. [0250], [0565]).
Ninglekhu discloses sending PCF information that may be associated with a SUPI ([0348], [0350], [0565] Application Data may be enhanced to include anticipated, or future locations, of the UE. The AF may then configure the UDR (via the NEF) with anticipated, or future locations, of the UE by writing to the UE's Application Data (using Internal Group Identifier or SUPI as a Data Key).). Although a SUPI may be considered a security credential, Ninglekhu does not explicitly disclose “security related information of the first maritime vessel” and “based on the obtained security related information of the first maritime vessel.”
Egner discloses an optimized access of security credentials via mobile edge-computing systems (Title). Egner discloses “estimating the future location of a subscribing client and provisioning that subscribing client's credentials to a trusted mobile edge authentication system device servicing the area surrounding the estimated future location..” ([0020]). Egner also teaches “only granting access to clients providing correct credentials” ([0086]).
Thus, Ninglekhu and Egner each disclose transmitting parameters in anticipation of attaching to a new access point. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the credentials of Egner could have been substituted for the PCF policy because both perform the function of controlling/enabling the user equipment on the future access point. 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 authenticating, or re-authenticating, user equipment using the methods known in Egner.
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 transmission of access credentials in Egner for the parameter transmission in Ninglekhu according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing parameters for enforcing security policies and access.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninglekhu in view of Egner and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0215378 (hereinafter “Munishwar”)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of --Ninglekhu and Egner do not teach: wherein the future locations of the plurality of maritime vessels are predicted by using a machine learning process.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Munishwar teaches: wherein the future locations of the plurality of maritime vessels are predicted by using a machine learning process ([39-42]).
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 Ninglekhu and Egner to include the feature of machine learning to predict vehicle location and a combination of Ninglekhu and Egner with Munishwar 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., predicting a future location of a vehicle with machine learning).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of --Ninglekhu and Egner do not teach: wherein the machine learning process comprises a clustering process.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Munishwar teaches: wherein the future locations of the plurality of maritime vessels are predicted by using a machine learning process ([39]).
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 Ninglekhu and Egner to include the feature of machine learning to predict vehicle location and a combination of Ninglekhu and Egner with Munishwar 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., predicting a future location of a vehicle with machine learning).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninglekhu in view of Egner and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0182897 (hereinafter “Vivanco”)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of --Ninglekhu and Egner teach historical positioning of vehicles but does not explicitly teach: wherein the historical status information of the plurality of maritime vessels comprises: historical positioning information of the plurality of maritime vessels; and/or historical reception signal strength of the plurality of maritime vessels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vivanco teaches: wherein the historical status information of the plurality of maritime vessels comprises: historical positioning information of the plurality of maritime vessels; and/or historical reception signal strength of the plurality of maritime vessels ([0053] In various embodiments, and as shown by reference number 260a, the data relating to the user equipment 230 can include information identifying, or usable to identify, movement of the user equipment 230 (e.g., a current location of the user equipment 230, a direction of travel of the user equipment 230, a speed of travel of the user equipment 230, and/or the like), network resource demand of (or usage by) the user equipment 230, capabilities of the user equipment 230 (e.g., whether the user equipment 230 supports dual connectivity, such as EN-DC, etc.), and/or the like. In various embodiments, the data relating to the user equipment 230 can include measurement report(s) (e.g., concerning signal strength(s) of nearby network nodes, such as the network nodes 215 and/or 225) provided by the user equipment 230 to one or more network nodes, such as the source network node 205.).
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 Ninglekhu and Egner to include the feature of prediction based on signal strength and location and a combination of Ninglekhu and Egner with Vivanco 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., prediction based on signal strength and location).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No 2021/0227442 (Yiu) related to location-based event trigger and conditional handover
WIPO Publication No. WO 2017037510 A1 (Valentine) related to system and method for communication with external networks from maritime vessels
Non-patent Literature entitled, “TS 123 288 - V16.6.0 - 5G; Architecture enhancements for 5G System (5GS) to support network data analytics services (3GPP TS 23.288 version 16.6.0 Release 16)”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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