Detailed Action
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/23/2026 has been entered.
2. In this Office Action, claims 1-8 and 10-21 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Response to Argument
3. In Remarks, applicant argues for the amended claim limitations “wherein the verifiably secure identity is linked to verifiable credentials of a user that are stored on a trusted and decentralized platform or digital identifier infrastructure associated with a trust service provider”. However, the amended claim limitations are considered obvious by the rationales found in the newly found prior art. See greater details in the claim rejection section set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 1-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torvinen et al. Pub. No.: US 2019/0364428 A1 in view of Suthar et al. Patent No.: US 10,505,718 B1.
Claim 1
Torvinen discloses a method (concealing subscription identifier in fig. 2-15) performed by a user equipment ("UE") (UE in fig. 1-22), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
374
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
acquiring a digital identifier ("DIG-ID") (fig. 7 & 9-11 for obtaining SUPI or encrypted SUPI or privacy key, see MPEP 2111) comprising a verifiably secure identity (SUPI and privacy keys verify SUCI for authentication in fig. 13-14), wherein the DIG-ID comprises a decentralized identifier or a self-sovereign identifier (SUCI in step 1 in fig. 13-14, see MPEP 2111), wherein the verifiably secure identity comprises the decentralized identifier or the self-sovereign identifier (step 4 in fig. 13-14 returning SUPI and privacy keys connecting to steps 8 in fig. 13-14 that UE stores the privacy keys after verifying the MAC in par. 0124; see par. 0118 for SIDF for retrieving the missing privacy key by storing clear text of fig. 3-5, 12 & 15, and thus, any verifiable ID in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15 can be said verifiable secure identify), and wherein the verifiably secure identity is linked to verifiable credentials of a user that are stored on a trusted and decentralized platform (SIDF 6 in fig. 13-14 ) or digital identifier infrastructure associated with a trust service provider (SIDF in fig. 13-14 retrieves the missing privacy key and clear text of fig. 3-5, 12, & 15 in par. 0118, it means the identify of UE as depicted in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15 are stored in SIDF for verifying in a secured way);
generating, by the UE, a UE permanent identifier using the DIG-ID (SUCI in step 1 of fig. 13-14 as depicted in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15, it’s a protected version of a SUPI in par. 0081 & 0083), wherein the UE permanent identifier indicates a service provider holding subscription information of the UE (subscription identifier and subject for SIDF identifier in fig. 4 & 15), and wherein the UE permanent identifier further indicates the trust service provider that enabled the DIG-ID (par. 0090 and fig. 13-14, the public key identifier carried in the SUCI to identify the correct SIDF 6);
transmitting, to a mobile communication network (AMF/SEAF 4 in fig. 13-14), a registration request message comprising a concealed version of the UE permanent identifier (Reg Request in step 1 in fig. 13-14 includes SUCI that’s concealed SUPI); and
PNG
media_image2.png
660
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
performing authentication with the mobile communication network using the DIG- ID (authentication in step 5 in fig. 13-14, see provisioning key ID and authentication code in fig. 15, par. 0130).
Although Torvinen does not explicitly show: “a trusted and decentralized platform or digital identifier infrastructure; and accessing a service provided by the service provider via the mobile communication network in response to successful authentication”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitation “a trusted and decentralized platform or digital identifier infrastructure”, claim recites the alternative limitations and Torvinen discloses digital identifier infrastructure (see fig. 13-14) that meets the claim requirement. However, to advance the prosecution, the alternative limitation “a trusted and decentralized platform” is considered obvious by the rationales found in the newly cited prior art. In accordance with MPEP 2111, “a trusted and decentralized platform” is reasonably interpreted as “blockchain platform”. In particular, Suthar teaches a blockchain platform (lines 29-64 of col. 6) and fig. 4-5.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “accessing a service provided by the service provider via the mobile communication network in response to successful authentication”, recall that Torvinen discloses authentication and registration accepted from UE (fig. 13-14). If so, after authentication and registration, UE would be accessing wireless services as depicted in fig. 1 of Torvinen from serving network and home network. Hence, these teachings from Torvinen would have rendered the addressing claim limitation obvious or the addressing claim limitation does not hold the patentable weight against Torvinen. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Suthar teaches providing UE access to one or more network resources based on the credit authorization and the blockchain confirmation (step 550 in fig. 5).
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 subscription concealed identifier of Torvinen by providing a native blockchain platform registering user equipment in a wireless network as taught in Suthar to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to register secure with a concealed identifier using a blockchain platform so that UE mobility would have improved by dynamic and flexible workload provisioning as suggested in lines 24-50 of col. 1 of Suthar.
Claim 2
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the concealed version of the UE permanent identifier is a DIG-ID-based subscription concealed identifier (SUCI) (Torvinen, SUCI in fig. 3 as a protected version of a SUPI and see par. 0081-0083), the method further comprising constructing the DIG-ID-based SUCI from the UE permanent identifier (Torvinen, SUCI in fig. 6-14), wherein the DIG-ID-based SUCI includes a type-indicator with a value that indicates a digital identifier type of the UE permanent identifier (Torvinen, any of values such as value for key identifier or home network identifier in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 3
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the DIG-ID-based SUCI further includes routing information comprising one or more of: a Service provider ID (Torvinen, MCC or MNC or SIDF identifier), a Service provider public Key ID (Torvinen, public key in fig. 4), or a DIG-ID Routing Indicator (Torvinen, MCC/MNC in fig. 4 is one of routing information), and wherein the routing information is to route the registration request message to a particular network function which handles DIG-ID-based user ID authentication (Torvinen, subscription identifier in fig. 4 and routing decision in fig. 6; accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement, see Markush Claims in MPEP 2117).
Claim 4
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the registration request message includes a digital signature and the DIG-ID-based SUCI if it does not include a Service provider public Key ID (Torvinen, digital signature in fig. 4), in response to using a plain text DIG-ID or using a null scheme to construct the DIG-ID-based SUCI (Torvinen, clear text part and encrypted part in fig. 3; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 5
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of wherein the DIG-ID is generated or provisioned at the UE to enable user authentication at the mobile communication network to provide access for a specific service over the mobile communication network (Torvinen, see fig. 13-14 for registration request and authentication and registration accept), and wherein the DIG-ID indicates a digital identifier type of the DIG-ID (Torvinen, fig. 15 for generating provision key including digital signature, subscription identifier, public key; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 6
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the DIG-ID is contained within a username portion of a Network Access identifier ("NAI") (Torvinen, NAI in par. 0082-0083 and see fig. 3-5, 12 & 15), said NAI comprising the DIG- ID and one or more of: time stamp, nonce, a freshness parameter, digital signature, key related information, trust service provider information or identity service provider information, wherein the NAI has the form <username@realm> (Torvinen, the ‘@’ in a NAI, ‘homerealm!username@otherrealm’ in par. 0083; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 7
Torvinen discloses a method (fig. 1-14 for authenticating user with subscription concealed identifier) of a network function (AMF/SEAF, AUSF, UDM/SIDF in fig. 6 & 13-14) in a mobile communication network (a wireless communication network in fig. 1-14), the method comprising:
receiving a first authentication request message (step 1 in fig. 13-14), the message comprising a concealed UE identifier (SUCI in step 1 of fig. 13-14);
de-concealing the concealed UE identifier to obtain a UE permanent identifier (SUPI in fig. 13-14 and see par. 0118; see de-conceal server in fig. 19-20 for decrypting the concealed ID as explained in par. 0142), the UE permanent identifier comprising a digital identifier ("DIG-ID") having a verifiably secure identity (in accordance with MPEP 2111, any ID fields in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15 could be reasonably interpreted as a verifiably secure identity), wherein the DIG-ID comprises a decentralized identifier or a self-sovereign identifier (step 4 in fig. 13-14 returning SUPI and privacy keys connecting to steps 8 in fig. 13-14 that UE stores the privacy keys after verifying the MAC in par. 0124; see par. 0118 for SIDF for retrieving the missing privacy key by storing clear text of fig. 3-5, 12 & 15, and thus, any verifiable ID in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15 can be said verifiable secure identify), wherein the verifiably secure identity comprises the decentralized identifier or the self-sovereign identifier (as explained previously, any ID and key in SUCI or SUPI depicted in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15, see SUCI and privacy keys in fig. 13-14), and wherein the verifiably secure identity is linked to verifiable credentials of a user that are stored on a trusted and decentralized platform or digital identifier infrastructure associated with a trust service provider (SIDF in fig. 13-14 retrieves the missing privacy key and clear text of fig. 3-5, 12, & 15 in par. 0118, it means the identify of UE as depicted in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15 are stored in SIDF for verifying in a secured way);
receiving subscription information from a service provider identified using the DIG-ID (provision information such as subscription information in fig. 15 could be obtained or received as depicted in fig. 7-12);
storing the subscription information (fig. 9-10 in view of fig. 13-14 and par. 0100-0103 and see fig. 0122-124 for network side for storing the information in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15) and an associated UE security context in response to successful authentication of the UE using the DIG-ID (fig. 13-14 for authentication), wherein the associated UE security context comprises at least one security key derived using the DIG-ID (privacy key and other keys as depicted in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15); and
transmitting the at least one security key to a network function in the mobile communication network (messages in steps 2-3 in fig. 13-14 includes SUCI and privacy key and see AMF and AUSF and SIDF in fig. 13-14), wherein the at least one security key is used to protect traffic of the UE (see authentication in fig. 13-14 in view of privacy key and other keys in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15).
Although Torvinen does not explicitly show: “a trusted and decentralized platform or digital identifier infrastructure”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitation “a trusted and decentralized platform or digital identifier infrastructure”, claim recites the alternative limitations and Torvinen discloses digital identifier infrastructure (see fig. 13-14) that meets the claim requirement. However, to advance the prosecution, the alternative limitation “a trusted and decentralized platform” is considered obvious by the rationales found in the newly cited prior art. In accordance with MPEP 2111, “a trusted and decentralized platform” is reasonably interpreted as “blockchain platform”. In particular, Suthar teaches a blockchain platform (lines 29-64 of col. 6) and fig. 4-5.
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 subscription concealed identifier of Torvinen by providing a native blockchain platform registering user equipment in a wireless network as taught in Suthar to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to register secure with a concealed identifier using a blockchain platform so that UE mobility would have improved by dynamic and flexible workload provisioning as suggested in lines 24-50 of col. 1 of Suthar.
Claim 8
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising determining to authenticate the UE with the service provider (authentication in fig. 13-14 of Torvinen), the determination based on a DIG-ID-type of the DIG-ID and also based on service provider information associated with the DIG- ID (Torvinen, any of values such as value for key identifier or home network identifier in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 10
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
verifying the DIG-ID using a locally stored DIG-ID (Torvinen, fig. 9-10 for UE side for storing the generated SUCI and the privacy key is stored in the 5G USIM/UICC and see par. 0122-0124 for network side for storing the information depicted in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15); and
authenticating the UE in response to successful verification of the DIG-ID (Torvinen, authentication in fig. 13-14; and thus, the combined prior art reads on what the claim requires).
Claim 11
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 10, wherein verifying the DIG-ID comprises verifying a digital signature of the DIG-ID with a public key corresponding to the user (Torvinen, digital signature and public key in fig. 3-5, 12 & 16 for verifying UE in registration and authentication), the method further comprising deriving the associated UE security context in response to successful authentication of the UE (see authentication in fig. 13-14 and see deriving keys in par. 0111-0113; accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement).
Claim 12
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
sending a second authentication request message to a service provider (Torvinen, see authentication in fig. 13-14 and fig. 2 as one and two authentications), UE can send another registration request and authentication again as privacy key are updated in fig. 10), the second authentication request message containing the concealed UE identifier or the UE permanent identifier in plaintext form and containing a subscription information request (Torvinen, see fig. 3-5, 12 & 15 for cleartext part and encrypted part, i.e., concealed part); and
receiving the associated UE security context from the service provider in response to successful authentication of the UE (Torvinen, authentication response in fig. 2 & 13-14 and see receiving encrypted SUCI with privacy keys in fig. 7-11 as information depicted in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 13
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the UE derives at least one matching security key corresponding to the associated UE security context (Torvinen, privacy key and key of fig. 3-5, 12 & 15 in fig. 13-14 for registering and authenticating), wherein the matching security key is based on one or more of: the DIG-ID (Torvinen, consider ID in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15), PLMN identifier ("PLMN ID") (Suthar, PLMN-ID in lines 41-45 of col. 8), Network identifier ("NID") (Torvinen, home network identifier in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15), or a service provider identifier ("SP ID") (Torvinen,, SIDF in fig. 15, accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim condition, see Markush Claims in MPEP 2117) .
Claim 14
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the associated UE security context is bound to one or more of:
the DIG-ID (any ID in fig. 15 of Torvinen), PLMN identifier ("PLMN ID") (Suthar, PLMN-ID in lines 41-45 of col. 8), Network identifier ("NID") (Torvinen, network ID cand be MCC/MNC in fig. 3-5, 12 & 15), or a service provider identifier ("SP ID") (Torvinen, SIDF identifier in fig. 15), wherein the at least one security key is derived further using the SP ID (Torvinen, provisioning key inputted from SIDF in fig. 15 and see deriving in par. 0111-0113; for these reasons, the combined prior meets the claim requirement).
Claim 15
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the first authentication request is received from a network function that is an access and mobility management function ("AMF") or a security anchor function ("SEAF") (Torvinen, AMF/SEAF in fig. 13-14 and see par. 0117), or both, wherein transmitting the at least one security key comprises transmitting the at least one security key to the AMF or the SEAF, or both (Torvinen, SUCI with privacy key from AMF/SEAF to AUSF and par. 0117-0119; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 17
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the first authentication request is received from an authentication server function ("AUSF") (Torvinen, AUSF for receiving SUCI with privacy key in fig. 13-14; Suthar, AUSF in par. 0077), wherein transmitting the at least one security key comprises transmitting the at least one security key to the AUSF (Torvinen, AUSF receives privacy key and SUCI in fig. 13-14; Suthar, see col. 9-11; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 18
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the one security key comprises an AUSF Key (Kausf), an Extended Master Session Key (EMSK) (Torvinen, EMSK in par. 0112) or a Cipher and Integrity Key (CK', IK')” (Torvinen, CK/IK and ciphering key and integrity key in par. 0112; and hence, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement).
Claim 19
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 7,
wherein the DIG-ID is generated or and/or provisioned at the UE to enable user authentication at the mobile communication network to provide access for a specific service over the mobile communication network (Torvinen, digital signature in fig. 4, SIDF in fig. 15), and
wherein the DIG-ID indicates a digital identifier type of the DIG-ID (Torvinen, SUCI in fig. 13-14 in view of fig. 3-5, 12 & 15 such as privacy key or provisioning key ID; Suthar, see registration type with key in col. 9-11; therefore, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 20
Torvinen, in view of Suthar, discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the DIG-ID is contained within a username portion of a Network Access identifier ("NAI") (Torvinen, NAI in par. 0082-0083 and see fig. 3-5, 12 & 15), the NAI comprising the DIG- ID and one or more of:
time stamp, nonce, a freshness parameter, digital signature, key related information, trust service provider information or identity service provider information, and wherein the NAI has the form <username@realm> (Torvinen, the ‘@’ in a NAI, ‘homerealm!username@otherrealm’ in par. 0083; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 21
PNG
media_image3.png
208
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 21 is an equipment claim corresponding to method claim 1. Limitations in claims are found reciting for the structures of the same scopes of the respective limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 21 is considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 1 set forth above.
7. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torvinen in view of Suthar and Liu Pub. No.: US 2021/0306849 A1.
Claim 16
Although Torvinen, in view of Suthar, does not explicitly disclose: “the method of claim 15, wherein the one security key comprises an AMF Key (Kamf) or a SEAF Key (Kseaf)”, claim 16 is considered obvious by the following rationales.
Initially, Torvinen depicts AMF/SEAF receives privacy key (fig. 13-14 and see par. 0117). In cellular communication security, the use of Kamf and Kseaf is intrinsic feature since 3GPP standards. The evidence could be seen in Suthar. In particular, Suthar teaches the use of KSEAF keys in par. 0077 and KAMF key in par. 0079.
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 subscription concealed identifier of Torvinen in view of Suthar by providing security realization over connections as taught in Liu to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a security over a plurality of heterogeneous access networks to access sessions in networks so that the level of trust could be established without a higher security risk as suggested in par. 0001-0004 of Liu.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights