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 .
Amendment filed 2/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, and 15-20 have been amended. The previous rejections under 35 USC 101 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claims 21 and 22 have been newly added.
Claims 1-20 as filed 5/19/2023 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the paragraph notation “[0080]” should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis et al. (US20210321258A1), hereafter Salkintzis, in view of Ramachandran et al. (US20250184689A1), hereafter Ramachandran.
Regarding claim 1, 8, and 15,
Salkintzis discloses a storage medium storing instructions (paragraph 74) that when executed by a proxy device (Fig. 1, interworking apparatus 135) causes the proxy device to perform a method (Fig. 6a, 6c) for integrating/enabling a non-3GPP device/end user device (EUD) without 3GPP signaling capability (Fig. 1, non-3GPP network 130; paragraph 46, 51-52, 58; non-5G-capable over non-3GPP) to communicate on a 5G/3GPP-based network (Fig. 1, 3GPP network 120).
Salkintzis shows a physical layer configured to receive non-3GPP signaling waveforms from an end user device (EUD) (Fig. 2B, Fig. 6A, steps 604-610; 802.1x exchange between UE and interworking function TWIF; paragraph 61), a network interface communicatively coupled to a 3GPP core network (Fig. 1, N3 interface between 135 and mobile core network 140 of 3GPP network 120; paragraph 48), and one or more processors configured to establish a connection with the 3GPP-based core network using a 3GPP credential to receive a first network address allocated by the 3GPP-based core network and associate the first network address with the EUD (paragraph 54, 66-72; Fig. 6a, steps 602, 618-626; Fig. 6c, steps 648-652; establishing a delegated PDU session with the 3GPP-based network for non-5G-capable over non-3GPP UE).
Salkintzis then discloses to extract a data payload from a waveform received from the EUD via the physical layer, encapsulate the data payload in outgoing Internet Protocol (IP) packets (Fig. 6, user plane communications 662 via IPSec-encapsulated QoS flows; paragraphs 61, 116, 135-137, 147, 167), a source header of the outgoing IP packets including the first network address (paragraph 58; user plane terminates at the UE/source, control plane terminates at the TWIF, where a header of disclosed IP packets is inherent) and transmit the IP packets to the 3GPP-based core network via the network interface (Fig. 6c, step 662; user plane connection between UE and 3GPP network via TWIF 220; paragraphs 66-72, 147).
Salkintzis at least suggests to determine whether to associated the EUD with its own 3GPP credential or a 3GPP credential via the proxy device (paragraph 126; inter-working function establishes normal PDU sessions for its own use as well as delegated PDU session for non-5G capable UEs using non-unique PDU session identifier) but fails to expressly show a credential shared with other non-3GPP devices.
Ramachandran discloses analogous art (Title: Configuration and Management of Ranging in Wireless Networks) including use of a credential shared with other non-3GPP devices (paragraph 119, 256-257; group/domain authorization credentials for all UEs including non-3GPP via proxy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Salkintzis by providing a credential shared with other non-3GPP devices, as shown by Ramachandran, thereby efficiently providing and verifying authorization for other non-3GPP devices communicating on the 3GPP-based network.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16,
The combination of Salkintzis and Ramachandran discloses the 3GPP-based network is a 5G network (paragraph 38, 46-62) and one or more processors are configured to select the 5G credential among a plurality of 5G credentials based on (1) identity of the EUD (paragraph 66; establishing connection includes processor performing authentication using Network Access Identifier/NAI and associated credentials), (2) protocol type of the waveform (paragraph 44; 3GPP/non-3GPP employing different protocols) or (3) a predetermined policy (paragraph 122; predefined keyword).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17,
The combination of Salkintzis and Ramachandran discloses the 3GPP-based network is a 5G network (paragraph 38, 46-62) and the one or more processors are further configured to receive incoming IP packets from the 5G core network intended for the EUD and, depending on a policy, extract an incoming data payload from the incoming IP packets; and transmit the incoming data payload as an outgoing waveform destined for the EUD using the physical layer (Fig. 6, step 18/signaling 662; paragraph 147; QoS flows over established user plane communication of the delegated connection in both uplink/transmitting to the core network and downlink/receiving from core network through TWIF to UE) or intercept the incoming packets and process the data for itself in the place of or in addition to transmitting the data to the EUD (paragraph 126; inter-working function establishes normal PDU sessions for its own use as well as delegated PDU session for non-5G capable UEs using non-unique PDU session identifier).
Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis and Ramachandran in view of Rajanikantha et al. (US20230171596A1), hereafter Rajanikantha.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18,
The combination of Salkintzis and Ramachandran discloses the 3GPP-based network is a 5G network (paragraph 38, 46-62) and the incoming data payload includes an instruction from the 5G core network to terminate the established connection, and wherein the one or more processors, in response to the data payload, terminates the established connection (Fig. 7A-B, Fig. 8, steps 7a-b/855-860; paragraph 150-152, 155, 173; disconnect delegated connection via non-3GPP access when PDU session over 3GPP access is established by the UE; PDU session release including NAI of remote UE) but fails to expressly show the proxy configured based on a policy to respond to a message intended to detect/monitor liveness of peers/EUDs and to maintain a connection with the 5G core network and prevent time-out.
Rajanikantha discloses trusted interworking function to integrate IP tactical nodes into a 5G network (Title) including the proxy configured to respond to a message intended to detect/monitor liveness of peers/EUDs to maintain a connection with the 5G core network and prevent time-out (Fig. 2, 3; paragraphs 2, 25; interworking function/TIF maintains required N2 and N3 interfaces with the core network but terminates all Wi-Fi related interworking functions at a proxy within the TIF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Salkintzis and Ramachandran by configuring the proxy to respond to a message intended to detect liveness of peers to maintain a connection with the 5G core network, as shown by Rajanikantha, thereby eliminating changes to the tactical waveforms and related functions integrated in a 5G network.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 22,
Salkintzis discloses the 3GPP-based network is a 5G network (paragraph 38, 46-62) but the combination of Salkintzis and Ramachandran does not expressly show the proxy configured based on a policy to respond to a message intended to detect/monitor liveness of peers/EUDs and to maintain a connection with the 5G core network and prevent time-out.
Rajanikantha discloses trusted interworking function to integrate IP tactical nodes into a 5G network (Title) including the proxy configured to respond to a message intended to detect/monitor liveness of peers/EUDs to maintain a connection with the 5G core network and prevent time-out (Fig. 2, 3; paragraphs 2, 25; interworking function/TIF maintains required N2 and N3 interfaces with the core network but terminates all Wi-Fi related interworking functions at a proxy within the TIF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Salkintzis and Ramachandran by configuring the proxy to respond to a message intended to detect liveness of peers to maintain a connection with the 5G core network, as shown by Rajanikantha, thereby eliminating changes to the tactical waveforms and related functions integrated in a 5G network.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis and Ramachandran in view of Magee et al. (US20200022008A1), hereafter Magee.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19,
The combination of Salkintzis and Ramachandran discloses the 3GPP-based network is a 5G network (paragraph 38, 46-62) but does not expressly disclose the identity of the EUD is hidden from the 5G core network.
Magee discloses analogous art (paragraph 4; non-3GPP access when interworking with 3GPP network) including the identity of the EUD is hidden from the 5G core network (paragraph 27; proxy provides interworking function and single point of contact to hide internal structure of the host network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Salkintzis and Ramachandran by hiding the identity of the EUD from the 5G core network, as shown by Magee, thereby maintaining trust relationship between 3GPP and non-3GPP networks in order to manage access of non-3GPP devices while hiding internal structure of those networks from the 3GPP/5G network.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis and Ramachandran in view of Shkedi et al. (US20220078527A1), hereafter Shkedi.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20,
The combination of Salkintzis and Ramachandran shows a 3GPP credential shared with other non-3GPP devices via the proxy (as shown above in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15), but does not expressly disclose associating a second EUD with the first network address.
However, analogous prior art to Shkedi discloses methods of using proxy IP address and redirection for cross-device actions (Title) including associating a second EUD with the first network address (paragraphs 54, 69, 80-81, 90; multiple devices allocated a common address via proxy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Salkintzis and Ramachandran by associating a second EUD with the first network address, as shown by Shkedi, thereby enabling common address sharing among multiple devices sharing a local network.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis and Ramachandran in view of Castellanos Zamora et al. (US20240056446A1), hereafter Castellanos.
Regarding claim 21,
The combination of Salkintzis and Ramachandran does not expressly disclose translating configuration requests from the 3GPP-based core network to the corresponding EUD as specific instructions and sending them to the EUD to control EUD behavior.
Castellanos discloses analogous art (Title; Fig. 4; Background; Non-3GPP Authentication) including translating configuration requests from the 3GPP-based core network to the corresponding EUD as specific instructions and sending them to the EUD to control EUD behavior (Fig. 5, s505; Fig. 6, s603; Fig. 8, s803, s807; Fig. 15-18; paragraphs 238-251, 591-593, 614, 620; authentication request message translated between protocols for non-3GPP access).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Salkintzis and Ramachandran by translating configuration requests from the 3GPP-based core network to the corresponding EUD as specific instructions and sending them to the EUD to control EUD behavior, as shown by Castellanos, thereby enabling non-3GPP access to 3GPP communication services from a variety of different protocols for unified data management.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims, as amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on newly-cited Ramachandran reference for any matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477