Detailed Action
1. The Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 04/07/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-16 and 21 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
2. In response to amendment made to claim 21, claim rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) given to claim 21 is hereby withdrawn.
2.1. In Remarks, applicant argues for claims 1 and 21 mainly with the amended claim limitation. However, the amended claim limitation is considered obvious by the rationales found in the newly cited prior art as explained in the claim rejection section set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz et al. Pub. No.: US 2023/0262460 A1 in view of Guo et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0278835 A1 and Irwan et al Patent No.: US 10,270,770 B1.
Claim 1
Kunz discloses a method (fig. 2-4 for reallocating AFC) performed by a wireless device (UE in fig. 1-4omprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
784
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
identifying that an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (Target AMF in fig. 2-3) relocation procedure with re-route via a Radio Access Network (RAN) node (NG RAN in fig. 2-3) is being performed for the wireless device (NG-RAN 203 in fig. 2B and UE sending NAS message (SUCI, UL NAS COUNT in 230 in fig. 2C and 315 in fig. 3);
generating a key associated with a primary authentication of the wireless device (4a-4d in fig. 3 for getting UE security key based on SUCI, see 329-331 in fig. 3); and
using the key for performing a Non Access Stratum Security Mode Control (NAS SMC) procedure with a first network node operating as a target AMF (see NAS messages between UE and the target AMF in fig. 2C & 3).
Although Kunz does not explicitly show: “wherein the use of the key by the wireless node is restricted such that the wireless device is restricted from using the key for at least one procedure other than the NAS SMS procedure with the first network node operating as the target AMF; and wherein the at least one procedure is an authentication challenge or request to the wireless device”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “wherein the use of the key by the wireless node is restricted such that the wireless device is restricted from using the key for at least one procedure other than the NAS SMS procedure with the first network node operating as the target AMF”, recall that Kunz discloses the use of AMF key and NAS keys for the security configuration in NAS encryption and integrity keys and NAS SMC (par. 0085 and steps 6a-7 in fig. 2C), by the target AMF, when provisioning the gNB or the UE with the key such as KgNB, Kamf or Kseaf (fig. 2B-C or 3), there are two options with reuse key or a new key (par. 0079), and creating a new key Kamf and new NAS keys (step 7 in fig. 2C and par. 0093, step 5 in fig. 3 and par. 0105 and see fig. 9). It means that a new key is required due to inapplicability of the same key, i.e., restricted or limited or expired or banned. Herein, it’s important to note that claim does not specifically define what are required to the key and what the at least one procedure is. If these teachings from Kunz, mentioned above, are compared to the addressing claim limitations, deriving a new key for target AMF due to relocation in Kunz would have rendered the addressing claim limitations obvious. In particular, Guo teaches deriving a new key due to lifetime expiry or time restriction (fig. 12).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 network function relocation with security context of Kunz by providing a new key derivation as taught in Guo. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to derive an application function key or a renew AF key so that the higher throughput could be obtained at higher frequencies in 5G-NR as suggested in par. 0007-0008 of Guo.
PNG
media_image3.png
624
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitation “wherein the at least one procedure is an authentication challenge or request to the wireless device”, it’s to note that claim does not specifically recite what are involved in authentication challenge or request and what are required to be the challenge or the request. See MPEP 2111. Indeed, Kunz discloses registration and authentication in fig. 2-3 that would involve challenge or request for ID or identity or name or key. What’s more, Guo teaches authentication procedure with key and key refresher for challenging in fig. 10-16. Hence, the combination from Kunz and Guo could have rendered the amended claim limitation unless claim further recites what are involved in authentication challenge. However, to advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Irwan teaches authentication challenging for fingerprint, key, etc. (see fig. 2-3 & 6-8).
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 network function relocation with security context of Kunz in view of Guo by providing a new key derivation as taught in Irwan to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided Internet of things IoT devices to access security services so that the IoT devices would have tolerant of security breaches, attacks, unauthorized or malicious use or malware as suggested in col. 1 of Irwan.
Claim 2
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the key is a KAMF (Kunz, an AMF key KAMF in 915 of fig. 9 and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 3
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the first network node, a first message comprising a NAS SMC message (Kunz, 233 AS SMC between UE and gNB in step 8 of fig. 2B, 253 NAS SMC in step 8 in fig. 2C and 333 NAS SMC, AS SMC in step 6 of fig. 3; and hence, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 4
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the AMF relocation procedure is identified by the wireless device based on the first message (Kunz, fig. 2-3, par. 0082 & 0090, the target AMF is aware of the ongoing AMF relocation due to isolation that whether the request comes from a source AMF or a UE; accordingly, the combined art meets the claim requirement).
Claim 5
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the AMF relocation procedure is identified by the wireless device based on a content of the first message (Kunz, par. 0082 & 0090 explains how to identify AMF relocation based on the content in the message by determining the message from UE or source AMF; in the same way, UE could have identified AMF relocation from the message, see MPEP 2143 KSR Exemplary Rationale C).
Claim 6
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the AMF relocation procedure is identified by the wireless device based on a type of the first message (Kunz, different type of network slice and type of network function in par. 0063-0064 and UE would identify AMF relocation from receiving initial context setup procedure or NAS SMC or AS SMC and NAS registration acceptance from the new AMF in fig. 2B-C & 3; see fig. 11A-F of Guo; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 7
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising receiving a second message comprising a primary authentication message (Kunz, NAS initial message in fig. 2A-C or Identity Request 319 or NAS SMC 333 in fig. 3; and thus, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement unless claim further recites what are required to be the primary authentication message).
Claim 8
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the AMF relocation procedure is identified by the wireless device based on the primary authentication message being received after the first message comprising the NAS SMC message (Kunz, NAS SMC 333 in fig. 3 and then par. 0106 describes the optional steps including the NAS registration accept message; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 9
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the AMF relocation procedure is identified by the wireless device based on the primary authentication message being received before a threshold amount of time has lapsed after the NAS SMC message was received (Kunz, a lifetime of the AF in par. 0141-0142; Guo, 1406 in fig. 14 and key refresh notification 1510 in fig. 15A and lifetime as a threshold amount in fig. 10-12; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 10
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first network node comprises a gNodeB (gNB) or Next Generation eNodeB (ng-eNB) (Kunz, NG-RAN in 1-4, eNB and gNB in par. 0052; Guo, fig. 6A-B for eNB and gNB; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 11
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first network node comprises a core network node (Kunz, AMF or AUSF or UDM or SMF in fig. 1-4 as a core network node; Guo, network in fig. 1 in view of fig. 7A would include UPF, SMF, AMF, AF, NSSF, SMSF; and hence, the combined prior art meets the claim condition).
Claim 12
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claims 1, further comprising:
setting a count to a value (Kunz, NAS COUNT in steps 5a-b in fig. 2C and see par. 0080, 0085-0086, 0089; Guo, COUNT in fig. 11B-C & E-F); and
refusing to accept a third message associated with the key based on the count being at the value (Kunz, 2-3 for registering with source AMF but registration accepted by target AMF, consider not accepting the key with source AMF but for a new Key; see further evidence for rejection in par. 0106-0107 and fig. 10; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 13
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the value comprises a maximum value for the count (Kunz, NAS COUNT in par. 0085-86 & 0089; Guo, COUNT in fig. 11 B-C & E-F; see finding optimum value involves routine skills in the art, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980).
Claim 14
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the third message comprises a NAS message (Kunz, NAS message in fig. 2A-C & 3 and thus, the combined prior reads on the claim).
Claim 15
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the wireless device is restricted from using the key for any procedure other than the NAS SMS procedure (Kunz, Kamf for AMF and NAS key and security key Kseaf in fig. 2-3 & 915 in fig. 9; Guo, lifetime for AF key in fig. 10-14; with the these teachings from Kunz and Guo, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F; check alternative evidence for authentication credential restriction such as roaming restrictions in par. 0485 of Shan Pub. Nol.: US 2022/0095260 A1).
Claim 16
Kunz, in view of Guo and Irwan, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the wireless device comprises a user equipment (UE) (Kunz, UE in fig. 1-4 and UE in fig. 1-14 of Guo; accordingly, the claim is read by the combined prior art).
Claim 21
Kunz discloses a method (fig. 1-9 for relocating AMF) performed by a first network node operating as a target Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (target AMF in fig. 2-3), the method comprising:
generating a key associated with a primary authentication of the wireless device (4a-4d in fig. 3 for getting UE security key based on SUCI, see 329-331 in fig. 3); and
using the key for performing a Non Access Stratum Security Mode Control (NAS SMC) procedure (see NAS messages between UE and the target AMF in fig. 2C & 3).
Although Kunz does not explicitly show: “wherein the use of the key by the wireless node is restricted such that the wireless device is restricted from using the key for at least one procedure other than the NAS SMS procedure with the first network node operating as the target AMF; and wherein the at least one procedure is an authentication challenge or request to the wireless device”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “wherein the use of the key by the wireless node is restricted such that the wireless device is restricted from using the key for at least one procedure other than the NAS SMS procedure with the first network node operating as the target AMF”, recall that Kunz discloses the use of AMF key and NAS keys for the security configuration in NAS encryption and integrity keys and NAS SMC (par. 0085 and steps 6a-7 in fig. 2C), by the target AMF, when provisioning the gNB or the UE with the key such as KgNB, Kamf or Kseaf (fig. 2B-C or 3), there are two options with reuse key or a new key (par. 0079), and creating a new key Kamf and new NAS keys (step 7 in fig. 2C and par. 0093, step 5 in fig. 3 and par. 0105 and see fig. 9). It means that a new key is required due to inapplicability of the same key, i.e., restricted or limited or expired or banned. Herein, it’s important to note that claim does not specifically define what are required to the key and what the at least one procedure is. If these teachings from Kunz, mentioned above, are compared to the addressing claim limitations, deriving a new key for target AMF due to relocation in Kunz would have rendered the addressing claim limitations obvious. In particular, Guo teaches deriving a new key due to lifetime expiry or time restriction (fig. 12).
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 network function relocation with security context of Kunz by providing a new key derivation as taught in Guo. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to derive an application function key or a renew AF key so that the higher throughput could be obtained at higher frequencies in 5G-NR as suggested in par. 0007-0008 of Guo.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitation “wherein the at least one procedure is an authentication challenge or request to the wireless device”, it’s to note that claim does not specifically recite what are involved in authentication challenge or request and what are required to be the challenge or the request. See MPEP 2111. Indeed, Kunz discloses registration and authentication in fig. 2-3 that would involve challenge or request for ID or identity or name or key. What’s more, Guo teaches authentication procedure with key and key refresher for challenging in fig. 10-16. Hence, the combination from Kunz and Guo could have rendered the amended claim limitation unless claim further recites what are involved in authentication challenge. However, to advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Irwan teaches authentication challenging for fingerprint, key, etc. (see fig. 2-3 & 6-8).
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 network function relocation with security context of Kunz in view of Guo by providing a new key derivation as taught in Irwan to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided Internet of things IoT devices to access security services so that the IoT devices would have tolerant of security breaches, attacks, unauthorized or malicious use or malware as suggested in col. 1 of Irwan.
Conclusion
6. 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.
Contact Information
7. 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 on 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