CTFR 18/446,889 CTFR 84418 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein and/or are not persuasive as they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 12-13, 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 10,986,013 to Theimer . Regarding claim 12 , Theimer teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions of an access and mobility function of the communication network, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (fig. 1, 11): cause a plurality of user equipment to intentionally introduce a specified number of one or more errors over a specified time period in at least one communication protocol layer used by the plurality of user equipment to communicate with at least one access point of the network (col. 3:15-40, fault injection with specified number of errors over time period; see also col. 6:1-67; col. 7:1-44; col. 10:15-55); and cause verification of one or more received error indicators for the specified time period against one or more expected error indicators for the specified time period to decide whether the at least one access point is compromised, the one or more errors intentionally introduced in the at least one communication protocol over the specified time period (col. 3:50-67, col. 4:1-30, analysis of faults over time period; comparison of error indicators). Regarding claim 13, Theimer teaches: wherein causing intentional introduction of the one or more errors further comprises sending a message to the plurality of user equipment, through the at least one access point, to intentionally report a given number of errors over a given time period (col. 3:50-67, fault injection to produce errors; time intervals). Regarding claim 15, 21, Theimer teaches: wherein the at least one communication protocol layer in which the specified number of the one or more errors are intentionally introduced comprises a packet data convergence protocol layer (col. 14:45-67, col. 6:10-10; col. 7:1-45). Regarding claim 16, Theimer teaches: wherein the one or more errors intentionally introduced comprise one or more message authentication code for integrity verification failures (col. 5:1-26, fault codes; see also col. 6:44-67). Regarding claim 17, Theimer teaches: wherein the one or more errors intentionally introduced comprise one or more measurement configuration errors (col. 3:1-25, measurement error, e.g. loss of data). Regarding claim 18, 24, Theimer teaches: wherein at least one of the communication network and one or more of the plurality of user equipment comprise artificial intelligence functionality (col. 4:1-25, col. 8:1-25, fig. 1, 140). Regarding claim 19, Theimer teaches: wherein the artificial intelligence functionality is used to provide one or more of an energy savings functionality, a load balancing functionality, a mobility improvement functionality, and a network improvement functionality (col. 8:5-40, col. 9:30-55, col. 11:55-65). Regarding claim 20, Theimer teaches an access point for a communication network, the access point comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the access point at least to: receive, from an access and mobility function of the communication network, an instruction to intentionally introduce a specified number of one or more errors over a specified time period in at least one communication protocol layer used by the access point to communicate with a plurality of user equipment connected to the access point (col. 3:1-67, col. 4:1-67; col. 5:1-26, col. 6:1-20); send data associated with the at least one communication protocol layer with the specified number of one or more errors inserted therein over the specified time period to the plurality of user equipment connected to the access point (col. 3:15-40, instructions to introduce faults; fault injection; see also col. 7:1-61; col. 8:40-67); and forward one or more received error indicators to an entity of the communication network to enable the entity to perform verification of the one or more received error indicators against one or more expected error indicators to determine whether any of the plurality of user equipment is compromised, the one or more expected error indicators being based at least in part on the specified number of one or more errors intentionally introduced in the at least one communication protocol layer over the specified time period, wherein the entity comprises an operations, administration and maintenance entity or a management data analytics function of the communication network (col. 3:50-67, col. 4:1-30, transmission of fault indicators for analysis, analysis of prior fault; comparison of error indicators; see col. 9:55-67, col. 10:55-67; col. 11:1-40; col. 12:1-24; col. 26:50-67). Regarding claim 22, Theimer teaches: wherein sending the data associated with the at least one communication protocol layer with the specified number of the one or more errors insert therein comprises one or more downlink packets having the one or more errors intentionally introduced therein (col. 7:1-61; col. 4:1-25, col. 8:1-25; fig. 1). Regarding claim 23, Theimer teaches: wherein the one or more errors intentionally introduced in the one or more downlink packets comprise altered message authentication code for integrity values that cause message authentication code for integrity verification failure for the one or more downlink packets (col. 9:1-30, col. 7:1-61; col. 4:1-25, col. 8:1-25; fig. 1, fault injection comprising instructions causing integrity verification failure for packets; see also col. 15:25-43). Regarding claim 25, Theimer teaches: wherein the artificial intelligence functionality is used to provide one or more of an energy savings functionality, a load balancing functionality, a mobility improvement functionality, and a network improvement functionality (col. 4:1-25, col. 8:1-25, fig. 1, 140). . Regarding claim 26, Theimer teaches: wherein deciding whether the at least one access point is compromised comprises determining whether the one or more received error indicators for at least a given one of the plurality of user equipment does not match the specified number of one or more errors that the given user equipment was instructed to intentionally introduce over the specified time period (col. 11:25-40, errors exceeding fault threshold; col. 13:45-67, col. 14:-15, errors resulting from combination of particular errors). Regarding claim 27, Theimer teaches: wherein the message sent to the plurality of user equipment through the at least one access point to intentionally report the specified number of the one or more errors over the specified time period is transparent to the at least one access point (col. 3:15-40; see also col. 6:1-67; col. 8:44-67, col. 7:1-44; col. 10:15-35) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theimer in view of US 20200021993 to Yang . Regarding claim 29, Theimer teaches: wherein the message sent to a given user equipment of the plurality of user equipment through the at least one access point to intentionally report the specified number of the one or more errors over the specified time period comprises a message (col. 3:15-40, fault injection with specified number of errors over time period; see also col. 6:1-67; col. 10:15-35. Thiemer fails to disclose, but Yang discloses wherein the message comprises a non-access stratum message (¶ 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Yang. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Yang would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating message integrity protection and verification (Yang, ¶ 4-6, 19). Regarding claim 30, Theimer fails to teach but Yang teaches: wherein the non-access stratum message is encrypted and integrity protected using a non-access stratum security context established for the given user equipment (¶ 19). Motivation to include Yang is the same as presented above. Regarding claim 28, Theimer fails to teach but Yang teaches: wherein the message sent to the plurality of user equipment through the at least one access point to intentionally report the specified number of the one or more errors over the specified time period is a secure message that is unreadable to the at least one access point (¶ 19, encrypted messages). Motivation to include Yang is the same as presented above. CONCLUSION 07-40 AIA 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 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 RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. 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. /RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/446,889 Page 2 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/446,889 Page 3 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/446,889 Page 5 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/446,889 Page 6 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/446,889 Page 7 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/446,889 Page 8 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/446,889 Page 9 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/446,889 Page 10 Art Unit: 2445
Prosecution Insights