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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Applicant's Amendment filed 8/11/2025. Currently, claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103, the arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been considered but are not persuasive to overcome the references on record: Lee et al. (US 2018/0270666 A1) in view of Kim (US 2012/0064892 A1).
In claim 1:
Applicant states in page 3 of the Remarks that “Kim may disclose an RRCConnectionSetupRequest with a TMSI (M-TMSI). Contrary to claim 1 however, Kim does not teach or suggest that, regarding a RRC procedure, “a security is not available.”” Examiner notes that the wherein clause has not been given any patentable weight since the claim language is deemed to suggest but does not require steps to be performed nor limits the claim to a particular structure. The wherein clause only negatively states that there is no security involved. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, even if Examiner would give it patentable weight, Kim reads on this limitation since security is not involved in the RRC connection setup request.
Additionally, Applicant states in page 3 that “neither Kim, nor Lee, nor any combination thereof, teaches or suggests that an unprotected RRC start message includes a TMSI.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the rejection was built, Lee teaches a RRC first message containing an identifier of the user equipment, UE ID, which is deemed to be a device identifier. The rejection then states, that even though Lee teaches on the device identifier, Kim supports the use of TMSI in an RRC first message, as shown in paragraph [0014] of Kim.
Furthermore, Applicant states in page 4 that “Kim discloses that the second message is transmitted form the MME to the eNodeB. However, this direction of message transmission is the opposite of the direction of message transmission described in the above cited features of claim 1…. Kim does not teach or suggest that the second message has an access stratum (AS) security parameter corresponding to the “first security related parameter,” as claimed.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the rejection was built, Lee teaches in figure 10, step 3 a message being sent from the base station gNB (i.e. base station) to the AMF (i.e. core node), which message contains the device identifier and security capability (i.e. security related parameter).
Examiner notes that the claim language as constructed contains very broad claim limitations and therefore gives way to a very broad reasonable interpretation. Consequently, Examiner believes that prior art of record still reads on the claim language as constructed and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0270666 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Kim (US 2012/0064892 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches:
A method for a base station, the method comprising:
receiving, from a User Equipment (UE), a first message, including a Temporary Mobile Subscription Identifier (TMSI), to initiate a Radio Resource Config (RRC) procedure (fig. 10, message 1 from UE to gNB, RRC request includes UE ID), wherein a security is not available for the first message (Examiner notes that this clause is deemed to be claim language that suggests but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure, therefore giving no patentable weight); and
sending a second message (fig. 10, message 3), including the TMSI and a first security related parameter (fig. 10, message includes UE ID and security capability), to a core network node (fig. 10, message 3 is being sent to AMF), wherein the RRC procedure is protected by a second security related parameter (fig. 10, par 95-96, UE is configured with NSSAI, which is associated with a privacy flag, thus providing a secure connection with a serving network).
Lee teaches on UE ID (i.e. identifier of user equipment) but Kim supports the teachings:
[message] including a Temporary Mobile Subscription Identifier (TMSI) (par 8, TMSI is an identity number of user equipments)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the UE ID field with TMSI identity number, as taught by Kim, to Lee’s invention. The motivation to do so would be in order to identify user equipments at a node (Kim: par 8).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first message is an RRC Connection Re-establishment Request message (Lee: fig. 10, par 115; Examiner notes that RRC re-establishment connection request performs same as RRC connection request but after a UE has lost connection. There is no evidence in the claims that this is the case, therefore RRC connection request message is equally functional as an RRC connection re-establishment request).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches:
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the second message is a NG Application Protocol (NGAP) message (Lee: fig. 10, message 3, par 32; Examiner notes that it is known in the art that a next generation application protocol is a message designed for 5G networks to facilitate signaling between a node and a core network with information about the user equipment. Therefore, given this general knowledge, the message 3 of fig. 10 in Lee qualifies as such message since paragraph [0032] explicitly suggests the invention is applied to networks in 5G technology).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches:
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the core network node is a mobility management node (Lee: fig. 10, AMF).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee and Kim teaches:
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the mobility management node is an access and mobility management function (AMF) (Lee: fig. 10, AMF).
Regarding claim 6, all claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, all claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, all claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, all claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, all claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, all claim limitations are set forth and rejected as it has been discussed in claim 5.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 LIZBETH TORRES-DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-272-1787. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00a-4:30p.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reached on 571-270-5440. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIZBETH TORRES-DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
October 18, 2025