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
Claim Status
1. This is in response to application filed on 1/26/2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horn et al., (US 2019/0313239), (hereinafter, Horn).
Regarding claim 1, Horn discloses a device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (= apparatus such as a UE for optimizing UE radio capability signaling, see [0009-10 and 0101]), the operations comprising:
including, in user equipment (UE) capability information, at least a portion of a device identifier of a UE (= determining, based at least on the type of network, at least one capability identifier associated with at least one of UE radio capabilities for type of the network, see [0009-10 and 0077]); and
causing the UE capability information to be transmitted in resource control messaging (= transmitter is configured to transmit, via RRC message, the at least one capability identifier to the network, see [0010 and 0106]).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Horn discloses the device, wherein the device identifier comprises an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) (see, [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned in claim 2, Horn discloses the device, wherein the at least the portion of the device identifier comprises a Type Allocation Code (TAC) portion of the IMEI (see, [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned in claim 2, Horn discloses the device, wherein the resource control messaging comprises radio resource control (RRC) messaging (see, [0064 and 0100]).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned in claim 4, Horn discloses the device, wherein the UE capability information comprises a UECapabilitylnformation information element (IE) in an RRC message (see, [0063 and 0100]).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned in claim 4, Horn discloses the device wherein the device comprises a modem chipset (see, [0049]).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned in claim 4, Horn discloses the device wherein the operations further comprise obtaining the at least the portion of the device identifier from a storage element of the UE (see, [0099]).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned in claim 1, Horn explicitly fails to disclose that the device further comprising a secure memory, and wherein the operations further comprise: storing the UE capability information in the secure memory, wherein the causing involves accessing the UE capability information from the secure memory (see, [0066 and 0064]).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned in claim 4, Horn discloses the device wherein the including is performed only once, resulting in permanent inclusion of the at least the portion of the device identifier in the UE capability information (see, [0099-100 and 0103]).
Regarding claim 11, Horn discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a user equipment (UE) that includes a modem, facilitate performance of operations (= UE 120 may be a wireless modem, see [0049]), the operations comprising:
receiving, from the modem, a request for at least a portion of a device identifier of the UE to be encoded in UE capability information for resource control messaging
(= BS 110 can request what capabilities for the UE to report, see [0065 and 0084];); and
providing the at least the portion of the device identifier to the modem in response to the request (= reporting capability identifier, see [0070, 0078 and 0106]).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned in claim 11, Horn discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium, wherein the device identifier comprises an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) (see, [0069]).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned in claim 12, Horn discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium, wherein the at least the portion of the device identifier comprises a Type Allocation Code (TAC) portion of the IMEI (see, [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned in claim 11, Horn discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium, wherein the resource control messaging comprises radio resource control (RRC) messaging (see, [0100]).
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned in claim 14, Horn discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium, wherein the UE capability information comprises a UECapabilitylnformation information element (IE) in an RRC message(see, [0100]).
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned in claim 11, Horn discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium, wherein the receiving is performed only during initial configuration of the modem with respect to the UE (see, [0099 and 0103]).
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned in claim 11, Horn discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium, wherein the receiving and the providing are each performed only once (see, [0099-100 and 0103]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horn view of Methner et al., (US 2024/0146750), (hereinafter, Methner).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned in claim 1, Horn explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein transmission of the UE capability information in the resource control messaging facilitates detection of fraudulent access to a network.
However, Methner, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the device wherein transmission of the UE capability information in the resource control messaging facilitates detection of fraudulent access to a network (= based on comparison of TAC to the end device information, multifaceted fraud detection device 125 may determine whether the capabilities match, see [0045 and 0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Methner with Horn for the benefit of achieving a communication system whereby capability information is used to determine fraudulent activity in the system.
Regarding claim 18, Horn discloses a method (= operation may be performed by gNB, see [0109]), comprising:
obtaining, by a processing system including a processor, user equipment (UE) capability information that includes at least a portion of a device identifier of a UE, wherein the UE capability information is transmitted in resource control messaging
(= network node receives an indication of capability identifier from UE; and the indication of at least one capability identifier may be received via a RRC message, see [0110]).
Horn explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“extracting, by the processing system, the at least the portion of the device identifier from the UE capability information to facilitate detection of fraudulent access to a network”.
However, Methner, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“extracting, by the processing system, the at least the portion of the device identifier from the UE capability information to facilitate detection of fraudulent access to a network” (= based on comparison of TAC to the end device information, multifaceted fraud detection device 125 may determine whether the capabilities match, see [0045 and 0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Methner with Horn for the benefit of achieving a communication system whereby capability information is used to determine fraudulent activity in the system.
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned in claim 18, Horn further discloses the method, wherein the device identifier comprises an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI), wherein the at least the portion of the device identifier comprises a Type Allocation Code (TAC) portion of the IMEI, wherein the resource control messaging comprises radio resource control (RRC) messaging, and wherein the UE capability information comprises a UECapabilitylnformation information element (IE) in an RRC message (see, [0069]).
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned in claim 18, Horn further discloses the method, wherein the processing system is implemented in a radio access network (RAN) or in a core network (see, [0064 and 0109]).
CONCLUSION
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Shostak et al., (US 2022/0225103) teaches system and method for network access security.
b. Huggett et al., (US 2009/0061863) teaches terminal device control server and method therefor.
c. Khetawat et al., (US 2008/0076386) teaches method and apparatus for preventing theft of service in a communication system.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.