Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 04/06/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-21 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
2. In Remarks, applicant presents the argument for claim limitation “ … a verification request requesting a verification of the identity request to a verification entity of the cellular network”.
Initially, before responding to applicant’s argument, in accordance with MPEP 2111, the claimed “a verification request” requires only for requesting the identity. It’s important to note that claim does not specify what message format or what wireless protocol are involved or used. For instance, email login ID, VPN login ID or banking login ID or authentication ID. Similarly, claim does not specifically define what are required to be a verification entity of the cellular network. In accordance with MPEP 2111, the claimed feature “a verification entity of the cellular network” could be reasonably interpreted as a base station of any type of cellular network, such as LTE, 4G, 3GPP or 5G network, or a network node, a network entity, AMF, a server or a network device with capability to communicate over a cellular network.
In fact, Bilgin teaches an identity request from base station and providing report of identity request message to analyser device (fig. 5). In the claimed invention, “in response to the identity request”, i.e., shown in fig. 5 of Bilgin, Kunz teaches UE for providing its SUCI to the AMF in an identity reply message (par. 0073). See fig. 5-6 of Kunz and par. 0074-0083 of Kunz describe authenticating UE as party of verification process. Since claim does not specifically what are included in the verification request, [in this case of Kunz, SUCI] and what the verification entity is [in this case of Kunz, AMF or UDM/AUSF in fig. 5]. Accordingly, the argued claim limitations is considered obvious by the combination of Bilgin and Kunz.
Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
3. For the above reasons, rejection to claims are sustained and duplication of claim rejection from the previous Office Action is provided below since no amendment has been made to the claims.
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 of this title, 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilgin et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0345892 A1 in view of Kunz et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0288320 A1.
Claim 1
Bilgin discloses a method (fig. 4-8 depict radio device 300 a or b-n for reporting fraudulent base station 20 to analyzer device 200) for operating a mobile entity in a cellular network (cellular network in fig. 1, 3 & 8), the method comprising:
receiving an identity request (S501 in fig. 8) from a requesting entity (fraudulent base station 20 in fig. 8), the identity request requesting a permanent, non-temporary identity of the mobile entity (S502 in fig. 8 and S303 in fig. 6)), by which the mobile entity is uniquely identified in the cellular network (S303 in fig. 6 and par. 0067, the long-term identifier, as to a permanent, non-temporary identity, could be IMSI),
transmitting, in response to the identity request, a response to the requesting entity (S304 in fig. 6), the response including the permanent, non-temporary identity of the mobile entity (par. 0084, the radio device reports the message to the analyzer device).
PNG
media_image1.png
739
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Bilgin does not disclose: “transmitting, in response to the identity request, a verification request requesting a verification of the identity request to a verification entity of the cellular network”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Recall that Bilgin discloses the radio device for reporting the message to the analyzer device (see fig. 3-8). If the addressing claim limitations are compared to this teaching of Bilgin, the missing feature is “a verification request requesting a verification of the identity request”. In fact, Bilgin discloses that the analyser device could identify the base station requesting for identity as fraudulent based on the time difference between the reports (fig. 4 and par. 0049). In addition, claim does not specifically define what are involved “a verification request requesting a verification of the identity request”. If so, the reporting identity request message from a radio device to an analyser device in fig. 3-8 of Bilgin could have rendered the address claim limitations obvious unless claim further recites what are involved in the verification request. To practice a compact prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Kunz teaches that victim UE may transmit initial registration with SUCI or UE capabilities to AMF (520 in fig. 5 and par. 0072).
PNG
media_image2.png
770
726
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 identifying and reporting a fraudulent base station of Bilgin by providing security mode integrity verification as taught in Kunz. Such a modification would have provided a victim user equipment to initiate initial registration or UE capabilities to AMF so that the recognition of false base station could be verified safely in security mode integrity as suggested in par. 0005-0008 & 0072 of Kunz.
Claim 2
Bilgin, in view of Kunz, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the verification request comprises transmitting the verification request to a core network of the cellular network (Kunz, 520 in fig. 5 and AMF is a part of core network and see 602 in fig. 6, and hence, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 3
Bilgin, in view of Kunz, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the verification request is transmitted to at least one of a mobility management entity and a data analytics entity of the cellular network operating as verification entity (Bilgin, analyser device in fig. 1, 3, 8 and report from mobile device in S502 of fig. 8; Kunz, 528 in fig. 5 to AMF and see MME as part of 3GPP LTE, or 4G, 5G or NR; accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim condition as claim recited to require alternative one).
Claim 4
Bilgin, in view of Kunz, discloses the method of claim 1,wherein transmitting the verification request is triggered by receiving the identity request or by transmitting the response to the requesting entity (Bilgin, radio device transmit report to Analyser device 200 upon receipt of identity request form base station 20 in fig. 8; Kunz, 520 in fig. 8; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 5
Bilgin, in view of Kunz, discloses the method of claim 1,wherein the permanent not- temporary identifier comprises the International Mobile Subscriber Identifier, IMSI (Bilgin, IMSI as long-term identifier in fig. 6 and par. 0067; Kunz, remote device in fig. 8 would include IMSI mentioned in par. 0003 as it’s provided by a manufacturer; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 6
Bilgin discloses a method (fig. 3-8 for verifying the fraudulent base station) carried out at a verification entity (analyzer device 100 in fig. 1, 200 AD in fig. 2-3 & 8) of a cellular network (wireless network in fig. 1), the method comprising:
receiving, a report transmitted by a mobile entity (radio device 300a-N in fig. 3-8), by which a permanent, non-temporary identity of the mobile entity is requested from the mobile entity by which the mobile entity is uniquely identified in the cellular network (S102 in fig. 4 and see par. 0067 for long-term identity and S303 in fig. 6),
checking, in response to the verification request, whether the identity request corresponds to one of a plurality of identity requests stored in a memory, wherein if this is not the case (S106-S108 in fig. 4 and S402-S405 in fig. 7),
determining that the identity request was transmitted by an entity not belonging to the cellular network and not entitled to request the permanent non-temporary identity of the mobile entity (S108 in fig. 4, par. 0062, the analyser device verifies that the base station is not a registered base station and then, the fraudulent notification is issued as depicted in S110 in fig. 4).
Although Bilgin does not disclose: “a verification request requesting a verification of the identity request to a verification entity”, the claim limitation is considered obvious by the following rationales.
In fact, Bilgin discloses the radio device for reporting the message to the analyzer device (see fig. 3-8) and the analyser device for identifying if the base station is a fraudulent base station based on the time difference between the reports (fig. 4 and par. 0049). In addition, claim does not specifically define what are involved “a verification request requesting a verification of the identity request”. If so, the reporting identity request message from a radio device to an analyser device in fig. 3-8 of Bilgin could have rendered the address claim limitations obvious unless claim further recites what are involved in the verification request. To practice a compact prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Kunz teaches that victim UE may transmit initial registration with SUCI or UE capabilities to AMF (520 in fig. 5 and par. 0072).
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 identifying and reporting a fraudulent base station of Bilgin by providing security mode integrity verification as taught in Kunz. Such a modification would have provided a victim user equipment to initiate initial registration or UE capabilities to AMF so that the recognition of false base station could be verified safely in security mode integrity as suggested in par. 0005-0008 & 0072 of Kunz.
Claim 7
Bilgin, in view of Kunz, discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising:
transmitting the identity request to the mobile entity, the identity request requesting the permanent, non-temporary identity of the mobile entity by which the mobile entity is uniquely identified in the cellular network (Bilgin, S503, S506 and S509 in fig. 8 and fig. 6, long-term identifier; Kunz, S530 in fig. 5 and par. 0073, the victim UE provides its SUCI to the AMF in an identity reply message, or 802 in fig. 8),
storing the transmitted identity request for a defined period of time (Bilgin, a threshold time value in par. 0089 and fig. 7), in a memory configured to store a plurality of different identity requests (Bilgin, fig. 7-8 for storing reports and checking reports and see S403 in fig. 5 for storing the report and timestamp in par. 0088; Kunz, S532 in fig. 5 and par. 0075 and par. 0075, timestamp and checking last known location to the new location within the time, and see 804 in fig. 8),
receiving, in response to the identity request, a response from the mobile entity, the response including the permanent, non-temporary identity of the mobile entity (Bilgin, fig. 8 and par. 0067 for long-term identifier as IMSI; Kunz, S530 and par. 0073, SUCI; 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 8
Bilgin, in view of Kunz, discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the transmitted identity request is only stored for mobile entities meeting a defined requirement (Bilgin, fig. 7 for storing reports from radio devices and timestamp in par. 0088 only for a threshold time value as explained in par. 0089; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 9
Bilgin, in view of Kunz, discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the defined requirement comprises at least one of a defined type of mobile entity and a defined area within the cellular network (Bilgin, par. 0075, making decision whether the location differences between the first PLMN and the second PLMN are possible based on the corresponding timestamp; Kunz, UE capabilities in 528-530 in par. 0072-0073; accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement because 1: claim recites alternative limitations and claim does not specifically define what are required to be the type of mobile entity, if so, UE capabilities in par. 0072-0073 of Kunz reads on the type).
Claim 10
Bilgin, in view of Kunz, discloses the method of any of claims claim 7, wherein the transmitted identity request is stored in the memory configured to store identity requests for a plurality of different verification entities of the cellular network (Bilgin, base station identity in fig. 6 for checking if it’s registered, and S403-404 in fig. 7; Kunz, 802-804 in fig. 8; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 11
Bilgin, in view of Kunz, discloses the method of any of claims claim 6, wherein the verification entity is implemented in a mobility management entity or a data analytics entity of the cellular network (Bilgin, analyser device in fig. 1, 3, 8 and report from mobile device in S502 of fig. 8; Kunz, 528 in fig. 5 to AMF and see MME as part of 3GPP LTE, or 4G, 5G or NR; accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim condition as claim recited to require alternative one).
Claim 12-15
PNG
media_image3.png
500
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 12-15 are mobile entity claims corresponding method claims 1-4. All of the limitations of claims 12-15 are found reciting for the structures of the same scopes of the respective limitations in claims 1-4. Accordingly, claims 12-15 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 1-4 respectively set forth above. Accordingly, Bilgin discloses a mobile entity (radio devices 300a-N in fig. 2-8 & 11-12) comprising a memory (storage medium 330 in fig. 11) and at least one processing unit (processing circuit 310 in fig. 11), the memory comprising instructions executable by the at least one processing unit (storage medium 330 for storing software or program 1310b in fig. 11 to be executed by the processing circuit to perform steps depicted in fig. 4-8).
Claim 16-21
PNG
media_image4.png
532
712
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 16-21 are mobile entity claims corresponding method claims 6-11. All of the limitations of claims 16-21 are found reciting for the structures of the same scopes of the respective limitations in claims 6-11. Accordingly, claims 16-21 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 6-11 respectively set forth above. Accordingly, Bilgin discloses a verification entity (analyser device 200 in fig. 2-8 & 9-10) comprising a memory (storage medium 230 in fig. 9) and at least one processing unit (processing circuit 210 in fig. 9), the memory comprising instructions executable by the at least one processing unit (storage medium 230 for storing software or program 1310a in fig. 9 to be executed by the processing circuit to perform steps depicted in fig. 4-8).
Conclusion
7. 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.
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 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