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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of newly added limitation into currently amended claims. Response to the amendment is as below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8- 12, 13-14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamora et al. (US 2022/0408249) (hereafter Zamora) (See IDS) in view of Gupta et al. (US 2024/0251239)(hereafter Gupta).
Regarding claim 1, Zamora discloses an apparatus ( ''AUSF 600" in Fig. 2 and Fig. 6) comprising:
receiving a request ( "re-authentication request') from a network entity ( "UDM 700" in Fig. 2) of a communication network ("home network') to which user equipment is subscribed, wherein the received request is for one of a reauthentication of the user equipment or a revocation of the user equipment in accordance with wireless local area network ("WLAN') access; (Fig. 2, Par. 45, " ... the UDM may trigger a HN initiated primary authentication reauthentication procedure for the communication device 400."; Par. 34, " ... home network (HN) ... " Par. 46, " ... the processing circuitry 703 may transmit a re-authentication request to the AUSF 600."; Par. 81, "The wireless network may comprise ... wireless local area network (WLAN) standards, such as the IEEE 802 .11 standards ... ")
identifying the user equipment based on information ( "communication device profile information') about the user equipment previously stored by the apparatus; (Par. 43, " ... re-authentication procedure ... is triggered by the UDM based on the authentication status of the communication device stored in step 2 of FIG. 1 together with other information (e.g. HPLMN configuration, communication device profile information) ... "; Fig. 9, Par. 67, " ... the processing circuitry 603 may detect a trigger to initiate a primary reauthentication request of a communication device ... "; Par, 68, " ... the processing circuitry may determine whether the communication device is registered with the UDM.") and
sending at least a portion ("re-authentication notification") of the received request toward the user equipment. (Fig. 2, Par. 50, "The AUSF 600 in operation 4 forwards the re-authentication notification to the AMF 500 ... ").
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the information comprises profile information associated with the non-seamless WLAN offload.
However, in same field of endeavor, Gupta teaches in para [0095], At 624, the AUSF 136 may send an authentication get-request message (for example, an Nudm_UEAuthentication_GetRequest message) to the UDM 140. The authentication get-request message, which may include the SUCI, the serving network name, and the NSWO indicator, may be used by the AUSF 436 to retrieve the UE's subscribed authentication method from the UDM 140. [0096] Upon receiving the authentication get-request message, the UDM 140 may use a subscription identifier de-concealing function (SIDF) to de-conceal the SUPI from the SUCI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gupta with the Zamora, as a whole, so as to identify the UE using the NSWO information, the motivation is to reauthenticate the UE.
Regarding claim 3, Zamora further disclose the apparatus, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: further participate in one of the reauthentication and the revocation of the user equipment with the network entity (see, para [0045] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Zamora discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a first network entity ( ''AUSF 600" in Fig. 2), a request ( "reauthentication request') from a second network entity ( "UDM 700" in Fig. 2'J of a communication network (" home network') to which user equipment ("communication device (UE) 400" in Fig. 2'J is subscribed, wherein the received request is for one of a reauthentication or a revocation of the user equipment in accordance with wireless local area network ( "WLAN') access; (Fig. 2 Par. 45, " ... the UDM may trigger a HN initiated primary authentication/re-authentication procedure for the communication device 400."; Par. 34, " ... home network (HN) ... " Par. 46, " ... the processing circuitry 703 may transmit a reauthentication
request to the AUSF 600."; Par. 81, "The wireless network may comprise ... wireless local area network (WLAN) standards, such as the IEEE 802 .11 standards ... ");
identifying, by the first network entity, the user equipment based on information ("communication device profile information'1 about the user equipment previously stored by the first network entity; (Par. 43, " ... re-authentication procedure ... is triggered by the UDM based on the authentication status of the communication device stored in step 2 of FIG. 1 together with other information (e.g. HPLMN configuration, communication device profile information) ... "; Fig. 9, Par. 67, " ... the processing circuitry 603 may detect a trigger to initiate a primary reauthentication request of a communication device ... "; Par, 68, " ... the processing circuitry may determine whether the communication device is registered with the UDM.") and
sending, from the first network entity, at least a portion (" re-authentication notification") of the received request toward the user equipment. (Fig. 2, Par. 50, "The AUSF 600 in operation 4 forwards the reauthentication notification to the AMF 500 ... ").
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the information comprises profile information associated with the non-seamless WLAN offload.
However, in same field of endeavor, Gupta teaches in para [0095], At 624, the AUSF 136 may send an authentication get-request message (for example, an Nudm_UEAuthentication_GetRequest message) to the UDM 140. The authentication get-request message, which may include the SUCI, the serving network name, and the NSWO indicator, may be used by the AUSF 436 to retrieve the UE's subscribed authentication method from the UDM 140. [0096] Upon receiving the authentication get-request message, the UDM 140 may use a subscription identifier de-concealing function (SIDF) to de-conceal the SUPI from the SUCI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gupta with the Zamora, as a whole, so as to identify the UE using the NSWO information, the motivation is to authenticate the UE.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, the combined teachings further disclose the apparatus, wherein the at least one processor and the at least one memory comprise a non-seamless wireless local area network offload function (Gupta, NSWO NF, 132).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Zamora further discloses an apparatus ( "UDM 700" in Fig. 2 and Fig. 7) comprising means for: sending a request ( "re-authentication request') to a network entity ( ''AUSF 600" in Fig. 2) of a communication network ("home network') to which user equipment is subscribed, wherein the sent request is for one of a reauthentication or a revocation of the user equipment in accordance with wireless local area network(" WLAN') access. (Fig. 2, Par. 45, " ... the UDM may trigger a HN initiated primary authentication/reauthentication procedure for the communication device 400."; Par. 34, " ... home network (HN) ... " Par. 46, " ... the processing circuitry 703 may transmit a re-authentication request to the AUSF 600."; Par. 81, "The wireless network may comprise ... wireless local area network (WLAN) standards, such as the IEEE 802 .11 standards ... ").
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the network entity to which the request is sent comprises a non-seamless WLAN offload function (NSWOF).
However, in same field of endeavor, Gupta teaches in para [0095], At 624, the AUSF 136 may send an authentication get-request message (for example, an Nudm_UEAuthentication_GetRequest message) to the UDM 140. The authentication get-request message, which may include the SUCI, the serving network name, and the NSWO indicator, may be used by the AUSF 436 to retrieve the UE's subscribed authentication method from the UDM 140. [0096] Upon receiving the authentication get-request message, the UDM 140 may use a subscription identifier de-concealing function (SIDF) to de-conceal the SUPI from the SUCI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gupta with the Zamora, as a whole, so send the request to the NSWO function, the motivation is to authenticate the UE.
Regarding claim 11, Zamora further discloses the apparatus, wherein the request is triggered by one or more of a subscription change and an operator policy (see, para [0044], subscription update).
Regarding claim 13, Zamora further discloses the apparatus, wherein sending the request further comprises sending a user equipment identifier to the network entity (see, abstract, authentication status of the communication device is checked, para [0004], The method further includes checking an authentication status of the Subscription Permanent Identifier, SUPI, of the communication device. The method further includes responsive to the authentication status of the SUPI being obsolete or null, transmitting a primary reauthentication message towards an Access and Mobility Management Function, AMF, via an authentication server function, AUSF).
Regarding claim 14, Zamora further discloses the apparatus, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: further participate in one of the reauthentication and the revocation of the user equipment with the network entity (see, para [0004]).
Regarding claim 18, Zamora further discloses the apparatus, wherein the at least one processor and the at least one memory comprise a unified data management function (see, abstract, UDM, [0007]).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamora and Gupta and further in view of ERICSSON ET AL: "Update of NSWO authentication procedure and SBA service operations", 3GPP DRAFT; S3-220266, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJEC™ (3GPP), MOBILE COMPETENCE CENTRE ; 650, ROUTE DES LUCIOLES ; F-06921 SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS CEDEX ; FRANCE, vol. SA WG3, no. e-meeting; 20220214 - 20220225 7 February 2022 (2022-02-07), XP052194698, [retrieved on 2022-02-07] (hereafter Ericsson) (see IDS).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings do not disclose the apparatus, wherein the wireless local area network access comprises non-seamless wireless local area network access via at least one access point. However, in same field of endeavor, Ericsson teaches on page 2, Figs. S.3-1. When the UE decides to perform NSWO, the UE establishes a WLAN connection between UE and WLAN access network (AN). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Ericsson with the Zamora and Gupta, as a whole, so as to incorporate the wireless local area network as claimed, the motivation is to perform UE authentication service.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings disclose the apparatus wherein the wireless local area network access comprises non-seamless wireless local area network access via at least one access point (see, Ericsson, page 5, Figs. S 3-1 and page 6 lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings further disclose the apparatus wherein further participating in the reauthentication of the user equipment with the network entity further comprises: receiving an identifier of a wireless local area network providing wireless local area network access to the user equipment; and sending the identifier of the wireless local area network to the network entity (see, Ericsson, page 6, Figs. S3-1, see, EAP-ID response and SUCI to the network entity).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings further disclose the apparatus, wherein further participating in the reauthentication of the user equipment with the network entity further comprises: receiving an identifier of a wireless local area network providing wireless local area network access to the user equipment from the network entity (see, Ericsson, S.3.1 Authentication procedure, teaches SW protocol message and with the (EAP-ID-response and SUCI) which are identifiers sent from WLAN to the UE).
10. Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamora and Gupta and further in view of Kunz et al. (WO2021245629) (hereafter Kunz) (see IDS).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings do not disclose the apparatus of claim 3, wherein further participating in the revocation of the user equipment with the network entity further comprises: receiving a revocation response from the user equipment; and sending the revocation response to the network entity.
However, in same field of endeavor, Kunz teaches in Fig. 4, para 121-123, teaches [0121] At Step 5, the UDM 205 triggers the network initiated deregistration procedure 20 according to 3GPP TS 23.502, which de-registers the UE 201 from the SNPN (see block 509). [0122] At Step 6, the UDM 205 sends a deregistration acknowledgement to the AUP/AUSF 207 and may include the NAI so that the AUP/AUSF 207 can relate the response to the request (see messaging 511). [0123] At Step 7, the AUP/AUSF 207 sends a deregistration response message to the AAA 25. Server 209 which may include the username at realm so that the AAA Server 209 can relate the response to the request and may remove the subscription profile (see messaging 513).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kunz, with the Zamora and Gupta, as a whole, so as to receiving a revocation response from the user equipment and sending the revocation response to the network entity, the motivation is to authenticating a device.
11. Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamora , Gupta and Kunz and further in view of Ericsson.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combined teachings do not disclose the apparatus, wherein further participating in the revocation of the user equipment with the network entity further comprises: deleting the previously stored information about the user equipment. However, in same field of endeavor, Ericsson taches this limitations, page 5, Fig. S3-1 lines 11-13 and 14.1.5. authentication deregister discloses deletion of stale security parameters. UDM uses this service operation to request the AUSF to clear the stale security parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Ericsson with the Zamora, Gupta and Kunz, as a whole, so as to delete the previously stored information about user equipment, the motivation is to perform deregistering.
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 DHAVAL V PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:00am-4:30pm).
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, Hannah Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/DHAVAL V PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights