DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-35 and 41-44 are pending. Claims 1-20 and 36-40 are canceled. Claims 21, 25-27, 33 have been amended. Claims 41-44 are new. This is in response to Applicant’s request for Continued Examination filed on April 10, 2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21, 28 , 33 and 37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 21-32 and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub 20150142986 (hereinafter Reznik)
Regarding claim 21, Reznik discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first terminal device, a first identifier from a core network element, wherein the first identifier is used to modify a security protection policy of a terminal device (Summary section, Figs. 3-4 and par. [0120]-[0125] disclose a system for discovering devices and/or enabling differentiated services where privacy considerations may be provided and/or used. The communication is provided and/or considered may be privacy such as UE, user identity and service privacy. To address privacy a random identifier for the service or UE identity that may ensure uniqueness and privacy. A unique random identifier may be generated in a variety of ways including random selection from a list that may be provided, cryptographic hashing of the application service name or UE identity, and/or in any other suitable manner. Thus, when the application on the UE may receive the name of the tailored service from the application server (e.g. at 216), the application may inform (e.g. register) 226 the name with the Connection Manager CM at 220. The CM may check (e.g. determine) whether it may currently have a policy such as restrictions, allowances, parameters, etc. to enforce. If the CM may not have a policy, it may contact the application server (or even network) to request a policy for the given service at 224);
in a process in which the first terminal device establishes a connection to a second terminal device for a service, determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, whether to enable, by the first terminal device, security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Fig. 7 and related text discloses a D2D communication in a cellular network between a UE1 and UE2. As part of the attachment process, the UEs may also obtain their D2D device identifiers that they may advertise so other UEs may locate them using device discovery procedures. At the end of the attach process, the users may already be authenticated with the network and the network may have verified that the corresponding users may
be allowed to obtain D2D services. After service registration may be performed, the last sequence or stage in FIG. 7 shows the initiation of D2D service between UE1 and UE2 (e.g. after both UEs may have gone through the attachment and registration procedures described above). The D2D server may play a particular role here by providing target MME identifier information (such as IP address) to a source MME, and arriving at an
acceptable configuration after reconciling the UE capabilities, among other
functions where a security protection is implemented as presented above in Figs. 3-4 and par. [0120]-[0125]); and
sending, by the first terminal device, first information to the second terminal device, wherein the first information indicates by the second terminal device whether to enable, by the second terminal device, security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (see above reasonings).
Regarding claim 22, Reznik discloses wherein the first identifier a new security protection policy, a new security protection enabling manner, or first indication information, wherein the first indication information indicates that the security protection policy of a terminal device is allowed to be forcibly modified (see claim 21 rejection).
Regarding claim 23, Reznik discloses wherein the first identifier is the first indication information, and determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, whether to enable security protection for the connection comprises:
determining, by the first terminal device based on the first indication information and according to a first security protection policy, whether to enable security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device, wherein the first security protection policy is a security protection policy applied by the first terminal device in the service (as presented above, a policy is enforced for a service. Hence, the security mode is enforced between two devices).
Regarding claim 24, Reznik discloses wherein the first identifier is the new security protection enabling manner, and determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, whether to enable security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device comprises:
determining, by the first terminal device based on the new security protection enabling manner, whether to enable security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (for each service, a different policy can be enforced).
Regarding claim 25, Reznik discloses wherein determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, whether to enable security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device comprises:
determining, by the first terminal device, based on a service discovery parameter sent by the second terminal device or a first message sent by the second terminal device whether the second terminal device supports forcible modification of a security protection policy of the second terminal device (recalling Figs. 3-4 disclosing an application service from a UE can be enforced with a policy or by the UE’s desire for privacy. Fig, 7 discloses the D2D communication in a discovery mode where Fig. 5 and related text discloses further in detail messages exchanged between the 2 UEs in the same manner as disclosed in Figs. 3-4 where a UE is checked with a policy for security protection where a message from a UE comprises ID/name and other information in the request used for security reason): and
in response to determining that the second terminal device supports forcible modification of a security protection policy of the second terminal device, determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, whether to enable security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (see claim 24 rejection and also Fig.12 for data in the control message which comprises the enforced policy but corresponding the capability of a device ( e.g. first or second device. Each device provides the advertising message comprising parameters recited in the claim).
Regarding claim 26, Reznik discloses wherein determining, by the first terminal device, based on a service discovery parameter sent by the second terminal device or a first message sent by the second terminal device whether the second terminal device supports forcible modification of a security protection policy of the second terminal device comprises:
receiving, by the first terminal device, the service discovery parameter from the second terminal device in a discovery procedure of the service, service, wherein the service discovery parameter is a service discovery code; and determining, by the first terminal device based on the service discovery code, whether the second terminal device supports forcible modification of the security protection policy of the second terminal device based on whether the service discovery code corresponds to
the first identifier (Figs. 5, 7 and related text discloses the messages exchanged between the UEs and other server, devices comprises various information including discovery mode information).
Regarding claim 27, Reznik discloses wherein determining, by the first terminal device, based on a service discovery parameter sent by the second terminal device or a first message sent by the second terminal device whether the second terminal device supports forcible modification of a security protection policy of the second terminal device comprises:
receiving, by the first terminal device, the first message from the second terminal device in the process of establishing the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device; and determining whether the second terminal device supports forcible modification of the security protection policy of the second terminal device (par. [0147] and [0152] discloses the UEs obtain their D2D device identifiers for discovery procedure. At the end of the attach process, the users are authenticated and verified in order to obtain D2D services. The D2D server further receive the D2D service specific policy requirements to determine whether the UEs satisfy these policy requirements).
Regarding claims 28-29, the claim is rejected in view of claims 21 and 26-27 rejections for interaction between the first device and second device using discovery mode for communication.
Regarding claim 30, Reznik discloses receiving a request message from a second network element serving the second terminal, wherein the request message requests the service discovery parameter of the first service; and returning a response message to the second network element, wherein the response message comprises the service discovery parameter and the security protection policy (Figs. 5, 7 and related text discloses all parameters in the messages in all UEs comprises all recited features).
Regarding claims 31-32, Reznik discloses wherein the first service is a neighborhood service Prose service, and the service discovery parameter of the first service is a neighborhood service code Prose code, wherein the Prose code comprises: a ProSe application code, a ProSe discovery code, a ProSe query code, or a ProSe response code (Fig. 5 and related text).
Claims 41-44 are rejected in view of claims 21-24 rejections.
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.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik in view of Pub 20170237747 (hereinafter Quinn)
Regarding claim 33, the claim is rejected in view of claims 21 and 26-27. Note that each service requires a different policy. Reznik discloses the advertising message comprises an IP address value but not discuss whether wherein the plurality of security protection policies comprise different security protection policies of a first service at different geographical locations. Quin discloses accessing protected data asset based on user device’s specific location enforcing by a policy (par. [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Reznik with Quinn to teach the aforementioned feature. One would have done so to for secure access based on policy for the improvement as discussed by Quinn.
Regarding claim 34, Reznik discloses sending, by the first terminal, a second discovery request to the first network element, wherein the second discovery request requests to obtain the service discovery parameter; receiving, by the first terminal, a second discovery response from the first network element, wherein the second discovery response comprises the service discovery parameter; and establishing, by the first terminal, the security connection of the first service to the second terminal according to one of a plurality of security protection policies (as illustrated in Reznik, both the first and second devices can discover each other but the request for communication for services still going via the control device for policy enforcement).
Regarding claim 35, Reznik discloses wherein the service discovery parameter corresponds to the security protection policy corresponding to the first service in the first discovery response (Fig. 7 and related text).
Inquiry communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1994. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
/TRI M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights