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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 improperly depends from claim 1. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, whereas claim 1 is directed to a device. A non-transitory computer-readable medium claim cannot properly depend from a device claim.
Claim 20 should be amended to depend from claim 19, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim. Correction of this dependency would place the claim in proper form.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1,2,4,10,11,13,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thantharate et al. (US 11582668, hereinafter Than) in view of Chuang et al. (WO 2022035696, hereinafter Chuang)
Regarding claim 1, Than discloses a device included in a cellular network, comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive a request from a User Equipment device (UE) to connect to the cellular network (Col. 7: Lines 32-35; The UE is attempting to connect to a base station during an initial registration request);
and determine whether the UE includes a Fifth Generation (5G) Non-Standalone (NSA) device (No patentable weight given due to the optional language “or”) or a 5G Standalone (SA) device (Col. 7: Lines 28-35; The UE provides capability information to the UE which indicates whether is supports SA 5G).
Than does not disclose if the UE is determined to include a 5G NSA device, perform a Fourth Generation (4G) authentication via 4G core network components included in the cellular network;
if the UE is determined to include a 5G SA device, perform a 5G authentication via 5G core network components included in the cellular network;
and when the 4G authentication or the 5G authentication is successful, establish a session with an endpoint in the cellular network.
Chuang, however, discloses if the UE is determined to include a 5G SA device (Par. 19: Lines 4-5; The connection mode of the UE is 5G Standalone), perform a 5G authentication via 5G core network components included in the cellular network (Par. 19: Lines 23-26; An Authentication Server Function (ASF) or Subscription Identifier De-concealing Function (SIDF) (i.e. core network identification) authenticates the identity of the UE);
and when the 5G authentication is successful, establish a session with an endpoint in the cellular network (Par. 19: Lines 26-29; If authentication is successful, a wireless connection between the UE and the base station is established, and access to the services provided by the 5G NR core network are granted; No patentable weight was given to the remaining limitations due to the UE including a 5G NSA device being given no patentable weight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Than to perform 5G authentication via 5G core network components for a UE operating in 5G Standalone mode, as taught by Chuang, so that the UE can be properly authenticated and granted access to services provided by the 5G core network. Such a combination reflects the routine application of known 5G SA authentication procedures to enable successful network registration and session establishment.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Than discloses wherein the request includes an information element that indicates that the UE includes a 5G SA device (Col. 7: Lines 28-35; The UE provides capability information on whether it supports SA during the initial network registration; The capability information constitutes an information element because it is a specific item of information that conveys whether the UE supports 5G SA).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1, no patentable weight is being given due to determining that the UE includes a 5G NSA device and performing 4G authentication being given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 10. Therefore, the limitations of claim 10 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 11. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 13. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 19. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 have been addressed. A device capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 20. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 have been addressed.
Claims 3,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thantharate et al. (US 11582668, hereinafter Than) in view of Chuang et al. (WO 2022035696, hereinafter Chuang) in further view of Zheng et al. (CN 114928864, hereinafter Zheng)
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Than in view of Chuang does not disclose wherein when determining, the processor is configured to:
determine that the UE includes a 5G NSA device if the device does not receive, from the UE, an information element which indicates that the UE includes a 5G SA device.
Zheng, however, discloses that it is determined that the UE includes a 5G NSA device (Page 7: Lines 42-44; The calling device actively falls back to LTE (NSA) operation when there is no VoNR indication (SA)) if the device does not receive, from the UE, an information element which indicates that the UE includes a 5G SA device (Page 7: Lines 39-41; When a UE residing in a 5G SA network does not receive a network indication (e.g., VoNR indication) during a timer period, the UE determines that SA voice service is not suopported).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Than in view of Chuang to determine that a UE operates as a 5G NSA device when no information element indicating 5G SA capability (e.g., VoNR support) is received, as taught by Zheng, in order to ensure reliable call establishment by falling back to LTE operation when SA service is not supported or not indicated, which is a predictable and well-understood design choice in 5G systems to improve communication success and service continuity.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 12. Therefore, the limitations of claim 12 have been addressed.
Claims 5,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thantharate et al. (US 11582668, hereinafter Than) in view of Chuang et al. (WO 2022035696, hereinafter Chuang) in further view of Palanigounder et al. (WO 2023018608, hereinafter Pal)
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1, Than in view of Chuang does not disclose wherein when performing the 5G authentication, the processor is configured to:
perform the 5G authentication via a Non-seamless Wireless Local Area Network Offload device (NSWO) (Par. 43: Lines 14-15; The 5G NSWO Function receives the authentication response; Authentication signaling is explicitly routed through the NSWO device), an Authentication Server Function (AUSF) (Par. 43: Lines 7-9; The AUSF sends the authentication challenge message via the NSWO Function; Par. 43: Lines 17-18; The AUSF verifies the authentication response), and a United Data Management device (UDM) (Par. 43: Lines 1-3; The UDM participates in subscriber identity handling during authentication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Than in view of Chuang to perform the 5G authentication via a Non-seamless Wireless Local Area Network Offload (NSWO) device, an Authentication Server Function (AUSF), and a Unified Data Management (UDM) device, as taught by Chuang, in order to authenticate user equipment accessing the network via non-3GPP access using the same 5G core authentication framework already employed for 5G access, thereby providing consistent authentication handling across access types.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 5 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 14. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed.
Claims 6,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thantharate et al. (US 11582668, hereinafter Than) in view of Chuang et al. (WO 2022035696, hereinafter Chuang) in further view of Palanigounder et al. (WO 2023018608, hereinafter Pal) in further view of Roeland et al. (BR 112016025700, hereinafter Roeland)
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 5, Than in view of Chuang in further view of Pal does not disclose wherein when performing the 5G authentication via the NSWO, the AUSF, and the UDM, the processor is configured to:
send a Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol Request (DER) to the NSWO.
Roeland, however, discloses sending a Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol Request (DER) to the NSWO (Par. 54: Lines 1-5; EAP authentication messages between a UE and the AAA server are encapsulated and transported using Diameter between the AAA server and a Trusted WLAN Access Network (TWAN); The TWAN is a non-3GPP access gateway that performs non-seamless WLAN offload functions and therefore corresponds to the NSWO-side device. Because EAP authentication information is exchanged using Diameter between the TWAN and the AAA server, the Diameter message carrying the EAP payload constitutes a DER request sent to the NSWO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Than in view of Chuang and Pal to further send a Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol Request (DER) to the NSWO during 5G authentication, as taught by Roeland, since Roeland discloses the use of Diameter-encapsulated EAP authentication signaling between an AAA server and a TWAN, which corresponds to an NSWO-side device, in known non-3GPP access authentication architectures.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 6 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 15. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 have been addressed.
Claim 7,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thantharate et al. (US 11582668, hereinafter Than) in view of Chuang et al. (WO 2022035696, hereinafter Chuang) in further view of Palanigounder et al. (WO 2023018608, hereinafter Pal) in further view of Roeland et al. (BR 112016025700, hereinafter Roeland) in further view of Russell et al. (US 20230354242, hereinafter Russell)
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6, Than in view of Chuang in further view of Pal in further view of Roeland does not disclose wherein the DER includes a Subscriber Concealed Identifier (SUCI).
Russell, however, discloses wherein the DER includes a Subscriber Concealed Identifier (SUCI) (Par. 109; A SUCI is included in an AAA Key Request message sent from the AMF to the AUSF during 5G authentication; Because the AAA Key Request message is part of the Diameter-based EAP authentication signaling established in the rejection of claim 6, the DER includes the SUCI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Than in view of Chuang, Pal, and Roeland to further include a Subscriber Concealed Identifier (SUCI) in the Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol Request (DER), as taught by Russell, because Russell discloses the use of SUCI in AAA-based authentication signaling to enable secure subscriber identification during 5G authentication, which is a known and desirable design choice for protecting permanent subscriber identities in authentication procedures.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 7 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 16. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed.
Claims 8,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thantharate et al. (US 11582668, hereinafter Than) in view of Chuang et al. (WO 2022035696, hereinafter Chuang) in further view of Srivastava et al. (US 20230156649, hereinafter Sri)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, Than in view of Chuang does not disclose wherein when establishing the session, the processor is configured to:
establish a session between the UE and a network slice included in the cellular network.
Sri, however, discloses wherein when establishing the session, the processor is configured to:
establish a session between the UE and a network slice included in the cellular network (Par. 9; The UE establishes a session for service via a network slice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Than in view of Chuang to establish a session between the UE and a network slice included in the cellular network, as taught by Sri, in order to support network slice-based service delivery for the UE using known 5G network slicing techniques.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 8 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 have been addressed.
Claims 9,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thantharate et al. (US 11582668, hereinafter Than) in view of Chuang et al. (WO 2022035696, hereinafter Chuang) in further view of Bashan et al. (US 11895017, hereinafter Bashan)
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1, Than in view of Chuang does not disclose wherein when establishing the session, the processor is configured to:
establish an Internet Protocol security (IPsec) tunnel between the UE and the device;
and establish a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session between the UE and the endpoint or a Packet Data Network (PDN) session between the UE and the endpoint.
Bashan, however, discloses establishing an Internet Protocol security (IPsec) tunnel between the UE and the device (Col. 32: Lines 46-47; N2IWF (network side device) establishes an IPsec tunnel with the UE and the device);
and establishing a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session between the UE and the endpoint or a Packet Data Network (PDN) session between the UE and the endpoint (Col. 32: Lines 34-46; There is PDU session handling and user-plane communication between the UE and the UPF, which is the endpoint of the PDU session).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the IPsec tunnel establishment and PDU/PDN session handling of Bashan into Than in view of Chuang, since Bashan discloses these features as part of a known 5G access architecture.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 9 addresses the limitations presented in in claim 18. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 have been addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648