DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 March 2026 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13-16, and 20 have been amended. Claim 11 has been canceled. New Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 13-21 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Rajadurai et al, US Patent Application Publication 2020/0221281, in view of Qiao et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0386401, and with particular reference to amended independent Claim 1, Applicant argues that Qiao, individually, does not disclose a flag bit (see pages 9-10 of the present response, citing Qiao, paragraph 0149). Applicant further argues that Rajadurai does not disclose that a security parameter is determined based on a credential type indicator that is a flag bit (page 10 of the present response, citing Rajadurai, paragraphs 0107 and 0104). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the parameter is based on a credential type indicator that is a flag bit) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Instead, the claim merely recites that the security parameters are determined based on the type of credential. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Qiao discloses a flag as an indicator of a first or second credential type (see paragraph 0150, as previously cited, where there is an indication, i.e. indicator or flag, of the preferred access type such as 3GPP or non-3GPP, corresponding to the claimed first or second credential type; note also the use of the term flag as synonymous with indicator in paragraph 0253). Further, Rajadurai discloses determining security parameters based on a credential type (for example, see paragraph 0130, identifiers provided so that the appropriate key, which is a security parameter, is identified; see also Figure 3, step 9, integrity check performed based on preferred network and access technology). Therefore, in combination, Qiao and Rajadurai at least suggest verifying using security parameters determined based on a type of credential.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (d) are moot in light of the cancellation of the claim. The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 13-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejection of Claims 7-9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been clearly addressed, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 13, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended to recite “processing the information” in response to successful verification. However, the specification does not clearly describe processing information in response to successful verification, and Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claims are supported. See MPEP § 2163.04. Therefore, there is not clearly sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “the instruction: instructing… or instructing” in lines 1-4. This is not a grammatically clear transitional phrase, although it appears that this may be intended as a “wherein” clause or similar. Further, it is not clear whether the two recitations of “instructing” are intended to be steps of the claimed method.
Claim 16 recites “the network steering instruction: instructing… or instructing” in lines 1-5. This is not a grammatically clear transitional phrase, although it appears that this may be intended as a “wherein” clause or similar. Further, it is not clear whether the two recitations of “instructing” are intended to be steps of the claimed method.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajadurai et al, US Patent Application Publication 2020/0221281, in view of Qiao et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0386401.
In reference to Claim 1, Rajadurai discloses a method that includes receiving a message from a first home network at user equipment via a first visited network, where the message includes a first information container and credential indicator, where the container includes information that is integrity protected or cipher protected and the credential indicator indicates a type of credential used to protect the container (Figure 3, steps 7 and 8; paragraphs 104, 105, 111-122, 124, 126, 129); verifying the container using security parameters determined based on the type of credential (Figure 3, step 9, paragraphs 106, 116, 122, 125, 130); and obtaining and processing the information included in the container when it is successfully verified or discarding the container when it is not successfully verified (Figure 3, steps 11a, 11b, 12, paragraphs 108, 109, 131, 132). However, while Rajadurai discloses using a 3GPP credential, Rajadurai does not explicitly disclose a flag bit indicating whether a credential is one of two different types.
Qiao discloses a method that includes receiving a message including a credential indicator indicating a type of credential used to protect a container, where the credential is of either a first type or a different second type and the indicator is a flag indicating the first or second credential type (see paragraphs 0146-0150, indicating access type as 3GPP or non-3GPP, corresponding to the claimed first or second types). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rajadurai to include the first or second credential type flag indicator in order to facilitate mapping of data traffic to particular connectivity parameters (see Qiao, paragraph 0150).
In reference to Claims 2 and 3, Rajadurai and Qiao further disclose information indicating a protection mechanism including cipher or integrity protection (Rajadurai, paragraph 0060; see also Qiao, paragraph 0110).
In reference to Claim 4, Rajadurai and Qiao further disclose verifying integrity or decrypting (Rajadurai, paragraph 0060; see also Qiao, paragraph 0110).
In reference to Claim 5, Rajadurai and Qiao further disclose parameters including security parameters, certificates, or keys, as well as credentials and steering instructions or policies (Rajadurai, paragraphs 0047 and 0041; see also Qiao, paragraphs 0144 and 0204-0208).
In reference to Claims 6-9, Rajadurai and Qiao further disclose executing an instruction to connect to a second or new visited network using the credential indicators (Rajadurai, paragraph 0171; see also Qiao, paragraph 0142).
In reference to Claim 10, Rajadurai and Qiao further disclose sending a second container that is integrity or cipher protected (Rajadurai, paragraph 0060; see also Qiao, paragraph 0110).
In reference to Claim 21, Rajadurai and Qiao further disclose integrity protection and cipher protection (Rajadurai, paragraph 0060; see also Qiao, paragraph 0110).
Claims 14-19 are directed to methods corresponding to the network device in the first network opposite the user equipment as recited in Claims 1, 5, 7, and 13, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus having functionality corresponding to the method of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights