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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 09 June 2026 amends claims, 1, 12, 21, 25, and 26. Claim 20 is cancelled and claim 27 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of the response, “Firstly, the Office Action fails to cite any passages in Li to teach or suggest that the message does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection.” In response, the Non-Final dated 27 February 2026 (“Non-Final”) never relied on Li for this feature. Instead, Bergstrom was relied upon to teach this claim limitation. Specifically, Bergstrom discloses a signaling system wherein indications can be omitted from messages when default parameters are considered suitable ([0048]). Li suggests that the default security policy is “suitable” to the extent that Li provides an optional embodiment that ignores the correspondence information and uses the default policy instead. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optional embodiment of Li to have simple omitted the correspondence information in the handover request message received by the TgNB in order to reduce signaling overhead as suggested by Bergstrom ([0048]).
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the response, “Li has not been shown to teach or suggest either condition as discussed above, much less to make the decision to send the path switch request carrying a first user plane security policy preconfigured on the target access network device in response to the combination of both these conditions.” In response, Li alone is not relied upon for the combined teachings. Instead, the combination of Li and Bergstrom is relied upon to teach the amended limitations as set forth in the rejections below.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the response, “However, Li’s correspondence information is a security policy that directly indicates whether to enable specific security protection-it is not an ‘EPS security capability of the terminal device’ that ‘indicates that the terminal device supports user plane integrity protection.’” This argument is not persuasive because Li discloses that the handover request includes a security related parameter that includes encryption algorithm identifiers supported by the terminal (Page 24, third paragraph & Page 24, last paragraph – Page 25, first paragraph).
Applicant argues on page 10 of the response, “As an initial matter, the cited passages of Bergstrom discuss a signaling between eNB and the UE not a message received by the target access network device from the source access network device.” In response, Applicant has failed to fully appreciate the utilization of Bergstrom to modify the disclosure of Li, which does disclose the TgNB receiving a message from the SgNB. Li discloses that the TgNB can choose not to use the correspondence information and just use the default security policy. Li does not specify that the correspondence information does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Bergstrom discloses a signaling system wherein indications can be omitted from messages when default parameters are considered suitable ([0048]: here Li suggests that the default security policy is “suitable” to the extent that Li provides an optional embodiment that ignores the correspondence information and uses the default policy instead), which meets the limitation of in response to that the message does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optional embodiment of Li to have simple omitted the correspondence information in the handover request message received by the TgNB in order to reduce signaling overhead as suggested by Bergstrom ([0048]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the response, “Furthermore, Bergstrom is silent in teaching or suggesting that the message received by the target access network device from the source access network device includes the EPS security capability of the terminal device, much less that a part of the bits in this EPS security capability of the terminal device is used to indicate that the terminal device supports user plane integrity protection.” In response, Bergstrom was not relied upon to teach this particular limitation. Instead, Li discloses that the handover request includes a security related parameter that includes encryption algorithm identifiers supported by the terminal (Page 24, third paragraph & Page 24, last paragraph – Page 25, first paragraph).
Applicant argues on page 11 of the response, “Nor has Bergstrom been shown to teach or suggest that the target access network device sends the path switch request in response to that the part of bits of the EPS security capability of the terminal device in this message indicates tha the terminal device supports user plane integrity protection and that the message does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection.” As discussed above, Bergstrom alone is not relied to teach the limitations in question. Instead, the combination of Li and Bergstrom is relied upon to teach the amended limitations as set forth in the rejections below.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the response, “Secondly, the Office Action has not demonstrated any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the cited references in a way to teach that that [sic] target access network device sends the path switch request in response to that the part of bits of the EPS security capability of the terminal device in the message indicates that the terminal device supports user plane integrity protection and that the message does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection.” In response, these limitations are newly amended features to the claims that would not have been addressed in the Non-Final. The combination of Li and Bergstrom is relied upon to teach the amended limitations as set forth in the rejections below.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the response, “Accordingly, Bergstrom and Li are directed to technical fields that are not ‘analogous’ to each other.” This argument is not persuasive because both references are directed to signaling flows in LTE systems.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the response, “However, as discussed previously, Bergstrom discusses saving overhead in the over-the-air signaling between eNB and UE, and thus is different from signaling between the access network devices, which are not over-the-air and the overhead is typically less of a concern.” In response, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of reduced signaling overhead between any of the network devices. Applicant has failed to provide any actual evidence that the signaling overhead between the access network devices is never a concern. Arguments presented by Applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12, 13, 16-19, 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, WO 2019062996, in view of Bergstrom, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0314895. Referring to claim 1, Li discloses security protection in a wireless communication system wherein a TgNB receives a handover request from an SgNB (Page 24, second paragraph, step 603: TgNB reads on the claimed target access network device; SgNB reads on the claimed source access network device), which meets the limitation of receiving, by a target access network device, a message from a source access network device. The handover request includes a security related parameter that includes encryption algorithm identifiers supported by the terminal (Page 24, third paragraph & Page 24, last paragraph – Page 25, first paragraph: security related parameter reads on the claimed EPS security capability; Examiner notes that “EPS security” represents the name of the claimed capability that does not define structure nor does the name require steps to be performed. Therefore, the name represents non-functional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04-2111.05. Regardless, Li discloses (Page 11, paragraph 6) that the devices are implemented in an LTE system, which would be considered an EPS system.), which meets the limitation of wherein the message comprises an evolved packet system (EPS) security capability of a terminal device, wherein the EPS security capability of the terminal device indicates at least one security algorithm supported by the terminal device. The handover request message includes correspondence between the user plane information the security policy and a security related parameter (Page 24, third paragraph: Li discloses an alternate embodiment in paragraph 6 of page 24 where the handover message “may” carry the security policy, but this is an optional embodiment.). The TgNB utilizes the security capability to determine the first user plane protection algorithm (Page 25, paragraphs 1-3), which meets the limitation of in response to that a part of bits of the EPS security capability of the terminal device in the message indicates that the terminal device supports user plane integrity protection. The TgNB sends a path switch message to an AMF node (Page 31, paragraph 8, step 801: AMF reads on the claimed mobility management entity) wherein the path switch message includes a default security policy (Page 31, paragraph 10), which meets the limitation of sending, by the target access network device to a mobility management entity, a path switch request that carries a first user plane security policy preconfigured on the target access network device. The default security policy can be used to determine whether to enable user plane integrity protection (Page 26, paragraph 5), which meets the limitation of wherein the first user plane security policy indicates whether to enable user plane integrity protection.
Li discloses that the TgNB can choose not to use the correspondence information and just use the default security policy. Li does not specify that the correspondence information does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Bergstrom discloses a signaling system wherein indications can be omitted from messages when default parameters are considered suitable ([0048]: here Li suggests that the default security policy is “suitable” to the extent that Li provides an optional embodiment that ignores the correspondence information and uses the default policy instead), which meets the limitation of in response to that the message does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optional embodiment of Li to have simple omitted the correspondence information in the handover request message received by the TgNB in order to reduce signaling overhead as suggested by Bergstrom ([0048]).
Referring to claim 2, Li discloses that the wireless network can be a 3G network (Page 11, paragraph 3) wherein the nodes in the 3G network are referred to as evolved (Page 11, paragraph 6), which meets the limitation of wherein the target access network device is a target evolved NodeB (eNB) and the source access network device is a source eNB.
Referring to claim 5, Li discloses that the handover request message includes user plane information that includes a DRB ID (Page 24, paragraphs 2-4), which meets the limitation of wherein the message further comprises identifiers of N evolved radio access bearers of the terminal device, and N is an integer greater than or equal to 1. The path switch message can include the user plane information (Page 31, paragraph 10) that includes a DRB ID (Page 24, paragraphs 2-4), which meets the limitation of the path switch request further comprises the identifiers of the N evolved radio access bearers.
Referring to claim 6, Li discloses that the path switch messages includes a default security policy and user plane information (Page 31, paragraph 10) such that the user plane information includes a DRB ID (Page 24, paragraphs 2-4), which meets the limitation of wherein the path switch request comprises N user plane security policies, and each of the identifiers of the N evolved radio access bearers corresponds to one of the N user plane security policies.
Referring to claim 7, Li discloses that the AMF sends a path switch ack/confirmation message to the TgNB (Page 33, paragraph 12, step 806) that includes a security policy reselected by an SMF node (Page 33, paragraph 13 – Page 34, paragraph 1), which meets the limitation of wherein after the sending, by the target access network device to a mobility management entity, a patch switch request that carries a first user plane security policy, the method further comprises receiving, by the target access network device and from the mobility management entity, a path switch response that carries a second user plane security policy. The TgNB updates the user plane algorithm and the user plane encryption key according to the received security policy (Page 34, paragraph 4, step 807), which meets the limitation of storing, by the target access network device, the second user plane security policy in a context of the terminal device.
Referring to claim 8, Li discloses that after the TgNB receives the path switch ack/confirmation message, the TgNB determines that the received security policy is not the same as the security policy from the SgNB and the user plane protection algorithm is reselected according to the security policy in the path switch ack/confirmation message and the TgNB sends an RRC connection reconfiguration message to the terminal that carries the updated user plane protection algorithm (Page 34, paragraphs 5-11), which meets the limitation of when a current user plane security activation status of the terminal device does not match the second user plane security policy, indicating, by the target access network, to enable or disable user plane integrity protection for the terminal device according to the second user plane security policy, wherein the current user plane security activation status is a status of whether user plane integrity protection is currently enabled between the target access network and the terminal device.
Referring to claim 12, Li discloses security protection in a wireless communication system that includes a TgNB with a processor and memory (Page 38, paragraph 5 & Page 39, paragraph 1), which meets the limitation of a communication apparatus comprising at least one processor coupled to at least one memory storing instructions and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus. The TgNB receives a handover request from an SgNB (Page 24, second paragraph, step 603: TgNB reads on the claimed target access network device; SgNB reads on the claimed source access network device), which meets the limitation of receive a message from a source access network device. The handover request includes a security related parameter that includes encryption algorithm identifiers supported by the terminal (Page 24, third paragraph & Page 24, last paragraph – Page 25, first paragraph: security related parameter reads on the claimed EPS security capability; Examiner notes that “EPS security” represents the name of the claimed capability that does not define structure nor does the name require steps to be performed. Therefore, the name represents non-functional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04-2111.05. Regardless, Li discloses (Page 11, paragraph 6) that the devices are implemented in an LTE system, which would be considered an EPS system.), which meets the limitation of wherein the message comprises an evolved packet system (EPS) security capability of a terminal device, wherein the EPS security capability of the terminal device indicates at least one security algorithm supported by the terminal device. The handover request message includes correspondence between the user plane information the security policy and a security related parameter (Page 24, third paragraph: Li discloses an alternate embodiment in paragraph 6 of page 24 where the handover message “may” carry the security policy, but this is an optional embodiment.). The TgNB utilizes the security capability to determine the first user plane protection algorithm (Page 25, paragraphs 1-3), which meets the limitation of in response to that a part of bits of the EPS security capability of the terminal device in the message indicates that the terminal device supports user plane integrity protection. The TgNB sends a path switch message to an AMF node (Page 31, paragraph 8, step 801: AMF reads on the claimed mobility management entity) wherein the path switch message includes a default security policy (Page 31, paragraph 10), which meets the limitation of send, by the target access network device to a mobility management entity, a path switch request that carries a first user plane security policy preconfigured on the target access network device. The default security policy can be used to determine whether to enable user plane integrity protection (Page 26, paragraph 5), which meets the limitation of wherein the first user plane security policy indicates whether to enable user plane integrity protection.
Li discloses that the TgNB can choose not to use the correspondence information and just use the default security policy. Li does not specify that the correspondence information does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Bergstrom discloses a signaling system wherein indications can be omitted from messages when default parameters are considered suitable ([0048]: here Li suggests that the default security policy is “suitable” to the extent that Li provides an optional embodiment that ignores the correspondence information and uses the default policy instead), which meets the limitation of in response to that the message does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optional embodiment of Li to have simple omitted the correspondence information in the handover request message received by the TgNB in order to reduce signaling overhead as suggested by Bergstrom ([0048]).
Referring to claim 13, Li discloses that the wireless network can be a 3G network (Page 11, paragraph 3) wherein the nodes in the 3G network are referred to as evolved (Page 11, paragraph 6), which meets the limitation of wherein the target access network device is a target evolved NodeB (eNB) and the source access network device is a source eNB.
Referring to claim 16, Li discloses that the handover request message includes user plane information that includes a DRB ID (Page 24, paragraphs 2-4), which meets the limitation of wherein the message further comprises identifiers of N evolved radio access bearers of the terminal device, and N is an integer greater than or equal to 1. The path switch message can include the user plane information (Page 31, paragraph 10) that includes a DRB ID (Page 24, paragraphs 2-4), which meets the limitation of the path switch request further comprises the identifiers of the N evolved radio access bearers.
Referring to claim 17, Li discloses that the path switch messages includes a default security policy and user plane information (Page 31, paragraph 10) such that the user plane information includes a DRB ID (Page 24, paragraphs 2-4), which meets the limitation of wherein the path switch request comprises N user plane security policies, and each of the identifiers of the N evolved radio access bearers corresponds to one of the N user plane security policies.
Referring to claim 18, Li discloses that the AMF sends a path switch ack/confirmation message to the TgNB (Page 33, paragraph 12, step 806) that includes a security policy reselected by an SMF node (Page 33, paragraph 13 – Page 34, paragraph 1), which meets the limitation of receive a path switch response from the mobility management entity, wherein the path switch response carries a second user plane security policy. The TgNB updates the user plane algorithm and the user plane encryption key according to the received security policy (Page 34, paragraph 4, step 807) such that the TgNB sends a reconfiguration message to the terminal (Page 34, paragraph 8, step 808) that includes the updated user plane algorithm (Page 34, paragraph 9), which meets the limitation of store the second user plane security policy in a context of the terminal device.
Referring to claim 19, Li discloses that the security policy can indicate that user plane integrity protection is not enabled and the TgNB may determine to enable the user plane integrity protection (Page 26, paragraph 5), which meets the limitation of when a current user plane security activation status of the terminal device does not match the second user plane security policy, indicating, by the target access network, to enable or disable user plane integrity protection for the terminal device according to the second user plane security policy, wherein the current user plane security activation status is a status of whether user plane integrity protection is currently enabled between the target access network and the terminal device.
Referring to claim 21, Li discloses that the handover request message includes correspondence between the user plane information the security policy and a security related parameter (Page 24, third paragraph: Li discloses an alternate embodiment in paragraph 6 of page 24 where the handover message “may” carry the security policy, but this is an optional embodiment.) and the TgNB utilizes the correspondence between the user plane information and the security policy to determine the first user plane protection algorithm (Page 25, paragraphs 2-3). The TgNB utilizes the security capability to determine the first user plane protection algorithm (Page 25, paragraphs 1-3), which meets the limitation of in response to that a part of bits of the EPS security capability of the terminal device in the message indicates that the terminal device supports user plane integrity protection. The TgNB utilizes the received correspondence information and the security capabilities of the terminal to determine a first user plane protection algorithm (Page 25, paragraphs 2-3, step 604), which meets the limitation of determining, by the target access network device based on the first user plane security policy, a user plane security activation status for the terminal device. The TgNB sends a handover request acknowledgement to the SgNB (Page 27, paragraph 3, step 606) wherein the handover request acknowledgement includes a handover command message that includes the first user plane protection algorithm (Page 27, paragraph 4), which meets the limitation of sending, by the target access network device, the user plane security activation status to the source access network device. The SgNB sends the handover command message to the terminal (Page 28, paragraph 4, step 607), which meets the limitation of wherein the user plane security activation status is to be send to the terminal device.
Li discloses that the TgNB can choose not to use the correspondence information and just use the default security policy. Li does not specify that the correspondence information does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Bergstrom discloses a signaling system wherein indications can be omitted from messages when default parameters are considered suitable ([0048]: here Li suggests that the default security policy is “suitable” to the extent that Li provides an optional embodiment that ignores the correspondence information and uses the default policy instead), which meets the limitation of in response to that the message does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optional embodiment of Li to have simple omitted the correspondence information in the handover request message received by the TgNB in order to reduce signaling overhead as suggested by Bergstrom ([0048]).
Referring to claim 22, Li discloses that the TgNB updates the user plane algorithm and the user plane encryption key according to the received security policy (Page 34, paragraph 4, step 807) such that the TgNB sends a reconfiguration message to the terminal (Page 34, paragraph 8, step 808) that includes the updated user plane algorithm for the terminal currently using a different algorithm (Page 34, paragraph 9: user plane protection algorithm currently used by the terminal reads on the claimed first user plane security policy), which meets the limitation of when the first user plane security policy is stored in the context of the terminal device, updating the first user plane security policy stored in the context of the terminal device with the second user plane security policy.
Referring to claim 23, Li discloses security protection in a wireless communication system that includes a TgNB (Page 24, second paragraph, step 603), which meets the limitation of wherein the apparatus is the target access network device.
Referring to claim 24, Li discloses that the security policy can indicate that user plane integrity protection is not enabled and the TgNB may determine to enable the user plane integrity protection (Page 26, paragraph 5), which meets the limitation of wherein when a current user plane security activation status of the terminal device does not match the second user plane security policy, indicating to enable or disable user plane integrity protection for the terminal according to the second user plane security policy comprises when the user plane security activation status of the terminal device is that the user plane integrity protection for the terminal device is not enabled and the second user plane security policy indicates that enabling is required, indicating the terminal device to enable user plane integrity protection.
Referring to claim 25, Li discloses that the handover request message includes correspondence between the user plane information the security policy and a security related parameter (Page 24, third paragraph: Li discloses an alternate embodiment in paragraph 6 of page 24 where the handover message “may” carry the security policy, but this is an optional embodiment.) and the TgNB utilizes the correspondence between the user plane information and the security policy to determine the first user plane protection algorithm (Page 25, paragraphs 2-3). The TgNB utilizes the security capability to determine the first user plane protection algorithm (Page 25, paragraphs 1-3), which meets the limitation of in response to that a part of bits of the EPS security capability of the terminal device in the message indicates that the terminal device supports user plane integrity protection. The TgNB utilizes the received correspondence information and the security capabilities of the terminal to determine a first user plane protection algorithm (Page 25, paragraphs 2-3, step 604), which meets the limitation of determine, based on the first user plane security policy, a user plane security activation status for the terminal device. The TgNB sends a handover request acknowledgement to the SgNB (Page 27, paragraph 3, step 606) wherein the handover request acknowledgement includes a handover command message that includes the first user plane protection algorithm (Page 27, paragraph 4), which meets the limitation of send, the user plane security activation status to the source access network device. The SgNB sends the handover command message to the terminal (Page 28, paragraph 4, step 607), which meets the limitation of wherein the user plane security activation status is to be send to the terminal device.
Li discloses that the TgNB can choose not to use the correspondence information and just use the default security policy. Li does not specify that the correspondence information does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Bergstrom discloses a signaling system wherein indications can be omitted from messages when default parameters are considered suitable ([0048]: here Li suggests that the default security policy is “suitable” to the extent that Li provides an optional embodiment that ignores the correspondence information and uses the default policy instead), which meets the limitation of in response to that the message does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optional embodiment of Li to have simple omitted the correspondence information in the handover request message received by the TgNB in order to reduce signaling overhead as suggested by Bergstrom ([0048]).
Referring to claim 26, Li discloses security protection in a wireless communication system wherein a TgNB receives a handover request from an SgNB (Page 24, second paragraph, step 603: TgNB reads on the claimed target access network device; SgNB reads on the claimed source access network device), which meets the limitation of receiving a message from a source access network device. The handover request includes a security related parameter that includes encryption algorithm identifiers supported by the terminal (Page 24, third paragraph & Page 24, last paragraph – Page 25, first paragraph: security related parameter reads on the claimed EPS security capability; Examiner notes that “EPS security” represents the name of the claimed capability that does not define structure nor does the name require steps to be performed. Therefore, the name represents non-functional descriptive material that is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04-2111.05. Regardless, Li discloses (Page 11, paragraph 6) that the devices are implemented in an LTE system, which would be considered an EPS system.), which meets the limitation of wherein the message comprises an evolved packet system (EPS) security capability of a terminal device, wherein the EPS security capability of the terminal device indicates at least one security algorithm supported by the terminal device. The handover request message includes correspondence between the user plane information the security policy and a security related parameter (Page 24, third paragraph: Li discloses an alternate embodiment in paragraph 6 of page 24 where the handover message “may” carry the security policy, but this is an optional embodiment.). The TgNB utilizes the security capability to determine the first user plane protection algorithm (Page 25, paragraphs 1-3), which meets the limitation of in response to [both] that a part of bits of the EPS security capability of the terminal device in the message indicates that the terminal device supports user plane integrity protection. The TgNB sends a path switch message to an AMF node (Page 31, paragraph 8, step 801: AMF reads on the claimed mobility management entity) wherein the path switch message includes a default security policy (Page 31, paragraph 10), which meets the limitation of sending, to a mobility management entity, a path switch request that carries a first user plane security policy preconfigured on the computing device. The default security policy can be used to determine whether to enable user plane integrity protection (Page 26, paragraph 5), which meets the limitation of wherein the first user plane security policy indicates whether to enable user plane integrity protection.
Li discloses that the TgNB can choose not to use the correspondence information and just use the default security policy. Li does not specify that the correspondence information does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Bergstrom discloses a signaling system wherein indications can be omitted from messages when default parameters are considered suitable ([0048]: here Li suggests that the default security policy is “suitable” to the extent that Li provides an optional embodiment that ignores the correspondence information and uses the default policy instead), which meets the limitation of in response to that the message does not indicate whether to enable user plane integrity protection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optional embodiment of Li to have simple omitted the correspondence information in the handover request message received by the TgNB in order to reduce signaling overhead as suggested by Bergstrom ([0048]).
Referring to claim 27, Li discloses that the TgNB generates a user plane protection key according to the first user plane protection algorithm (Page 26, Step 605), which meets the limitation of wherein the target eNB is an eNB supporting user plane security protection. Li does not describe the SgNB/second access network device as supporting user plane protection, which meets the limitation of the source eNB is an eNB not supporting user plane security protection.
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 BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 5:30-4:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights