DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The prior objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of the Replacement Sheets filed for Figures 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 4 to 20. The Replacement Sheets for Figures 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 4 to 20 are accepted and entered.
Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on April 28, 2023 as modified by the preliminary amendment filed on May 24, 2023, and as further modified by the Amendment filed on November 10, 2025. Claims 1 to 14 were originally filed, and the preliminary amendment amended claims 3 to 9, and 11 to 14, and the present Amendment canceled claims 2, 7-8, 10, 13-14, and added claims 15-26, so that claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-12, and 15-26 are now pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections ‐ 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form
the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The prior rejections of claims 1 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by 3GPP TS 33.501 – 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Security architecture and procedures for 5G system (Release 16) (2020-09) (“the 3GPP reference”), are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” or “step” in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word “means” or “step” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” or “step” are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” or “step” are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1, as amended, has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the “method comprises” steps, namely the steps of “receiving”, “obtaining”, “determining”, and “sending”. Accordingly, its limitations use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language: [A] “receiving, by a network repository function network element, a token request from a network function service consumer entity”, in which the “token request carries a first network function type of the network function service consumer entity”; [B] “obtaining, by the network repository function network element, a certificate of the network function service consumer entity”, in which the “certificate comprises a second network function type”; [C] “determining, by the network repository function network element, whether the first network function type of the network function service consumer entity matches the second network function type comprised in the certificate”; and [D] “in response to determining that the first network function type matches the second network function type”, “sending, by the network repository function network element, a token to the network function service consumer entity”.
In other words, [A] provides a “network repository function network element” for “receiving” a “token request from a network function service consumer entity”, in which the “token request carries a first network function type of the network function service consumer entity”.
Likewise, [B] provides the “network repository function network element” for “obtaining” a “certificate of the network function service consumer entity”, in which the “certificate comprises a second network function type”.
Still further, [C] provides the “network repository function network element” for “determining” “whether the first network function type of the network function service consumer entity matches the second network function type comprised in the certificate”.
Finally, [D] provides the “network repository function network element” for “sending” a “token to the network function service consumer entity”, “in response to determining that the first network function type of the network function service consumer entity matches the second network function type comprised in the certificate”.
As to each of [A], [B], [C] and [D], a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for the “network repository function network element” for performing the functions of “receiving”, “obtaining”, “determining”, or “sending”.
It is also noted that a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for a “network function service consumer entity”, a “first network function type”, or a “second network function type”.
Claim 19, as amended, has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language. In particular, independent claim 19 includes limitations like those of method claim 9, except that claim 9 is directed to a “communication system”, comprising: a “network repository function network element”; a “network function service provider entity”, in which the “network repository function network element” is configured to:
[A] “receive a token request from a network function service consumer entity”, in which the “token request carries a first network function type of the network function service consumer entity”;
[B] “obtain a certificate of the network function service consumer entity”, in which the “certificate comprises a second network function type”;
[C] “determine whether the first network function type of the network function service consumer entity matches the second network function type comprised in the certificate”; and [D] “in response to determining that the first network function type of the network function service consumer entity matches the second network function type comprised in the certificate, send a token to the network function service consumer entity”; and
in which the “network function service provider entity” is configured to:
[E] “receive a service request from the network function service consumer entity”, in which the “service request comprises the token and an assertion”, the “token comprises a first network function (NF) instance identifier (ID), and the assertion comprises a second NF instance ID”;
[F] determine whether the first NF instance ID matches the second NF instance ID; and
[G] in response to determining that the first NF instance ID matches the second NF instance ID, send a service response to the network function service consumer entity”.
In other words, [A] provides for “receiving” a “token request from a network function service consumer entity”, in which the “token request carries a first network function type of the network function service consumer entity”. That is, the “network function service consumer entity” is for sending the token request.
Likewise, [B] provides for “obtaining” a “certificate of the network function service consumer entity”, in which the “certificate comprises a second network function type”.
Still further, [C] provides for “determining” “whether the first network function type of the network function service consumer entity matches the second network function type comprised in the certificate”.
Finally, [D] provides for “sending” a “token to the network function service consumer entity”, “in response to determining that the first network function type of the network function service consumer entity matches the second network function type comprised in the certificate”.
As to each of [A], [B], [C], [D], and [G], a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for the “network function service consumer element”. It is also noted that a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for a “first network function type” or a “second network function type”.
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, Applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if
any, by reference characters in response to this Office Action.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this regard, M.P.E.P. § 2181.I.B provides the following: Caterpillar Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 961 F.Supp. 1249, 1255, 41 USPQ2d 1876, 1882 (N.D. Ind. 1996) (stating that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, “applies to functional method claims where the element at issue sets forth a step for reaching a particular result, but not the specific technique or procedure used to achieve the result”), as here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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, 3-6, 18, and 19-23 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 claim(s) contains 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.
Regarding claim 1, as to each of [A], [B], [C] and [D], a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for the “network repository function network element” for performing the functions of “receiving”, “obtaining”, “determining”, or “sending”. It is also noted that a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for a “network function service consumer entity”, a “first network function type”, or a “second network function type”.
Regarding claim 19, as to each of [A], [B], [C], [D], and [G], a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for the “network function service consumer element”. It is also noted that a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for a “first network function type” or a “second network function type”.
Therefore, the claimed elements, entities, and types and their related functions are not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise significant and substantial doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 3-6 and 18 are rejected as lacking a proper written description because they depend from rejected claim 1.
Claims 20-23 are rejected as lacking a proper written description because they depend from rejected claim 19.
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 1, 3-6, 18, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to comply with the definiteness requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter for which the specification does not 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.
Regarding claim 1, as to each of [A], [B], [C] and [D], a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for the “network repository function network element” for performing the functions of “receiving”, “obtaining”, “determining”, or “sending”. It is also noted that a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for a “network function service consumer entity”, a “first network function type”, or a “second network function type”.
Regarding claim 19, as to each of [A], [B], [C], [D], and [G], a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for the “network function service consumer element”. It is also noted that a review of the instant specification makes plain that it does not disclose any structure for a “first network function type” or a “second network function type”.
Therefore, the claimed elements, entities, and types and their related functions are not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise significant and substantial doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 3-6 and 18 are rejected as indefinite because they depend from rejected claim 1.
Claims 20-23 are rejected as indefinite because they depend from rejected claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 12, 15-17, and 24-26 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection that are attributable to the new amendments. (See M.P.E.P. FP 7.38).
Conclusion
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 AARON C. DEDITCH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday at 8:00 am to 6:30 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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/Aaron C. Deditch/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
2/17/2026