DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 12/08/25.
Independent claims have been amended.
New claims 15-20 have been added.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is granted as of 10/15/2025 and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (US 2013/0344890, “Hahn”) in view of Lu et al. (US 2011/0110350, “Lu”) and further in view of Youn et al. (US 2018/0376384, hereinafter “Youn”; provisional of 62/443,838 filed on Jan. 9, 2017, hereinafter “Prov’838 of Youn”).
Regarding claim 1, Hahn discloses a method for operating a User Equipment (UE), wherein the UE is served by source Mobility Management Entity (MME) function in a first network (Hahn, See 30 Fig.2, MME in EPC network; See ¶.37, the UE may be registered in multiple tracking areas. All the tracking areas in the tracking area list to which the UE is registered are served by the same serving MME), and requires to register a target Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) function in a second network (Examiner’s Note: Hahn does not show AMF in a second network, but Youn discloses the limitation), the method comprising:
- generating a registration request message, wherein the registration request message is generated to contain an integrity protected message that is integrity protected using information shared between the UE and the source MME function (Hahn, See 1-3 Fig.3,
PNG
media_image1.png
144
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
UE triggers to start TAU procedure and sends TAU request message to MME; See ¶.83, the TAU Request message shall be integrity protected by the NAS-MAC; See ¶.85, the UE Validated indicates that the new MME has validated the integrity protection of the TAU message. To validate the context request message, the old MME uses the complete TAU request message and the old S4 SGSN uses the P-TMSI signature; Examiner’s Note: Lu discloses the limitation “a registration request message” associated with the “TAU request message” and Youn discloses “registration of the UE with the target AMF function”); and
- sending the integrity protected message to the source MME function, wherein the sending includes sending the registration request message with the integrity protected message contained therein to the target AMF function (Hahn, See 3 Fig.7 and ¶.83, sending, to the MME, the TAU request message being integrity protected by the NAS-MAC; Examiner’s Note: Youn discloses the limitation “via the target AMF function” and “contained therein to the target AMF function”).
Hahn discloses the method of sending TAU request message to MME, but silent on the limitation “a registration request message” associated with the TAU request message.
However, Lu discloses “a registration request message” associated with the TAU request message (Lu, See ¶.15, the UE moves to the E-UTRAN coverage area of the MME, sends to the MME a tracking area updating (TAU) request for registering in the new area; the request message carries a P-TMSI allocated to the UE by the SGSN).
Hahn discloses the method of sending the integrity protected message to the source MME function, but does not explicitly disclose the limitations “a registration request message that requests registration of the UE with the target AMF function and sending the integrity protected message via the target AMF function, wherein the integrity protected message contained therein to the target AMF function” in the network environment of MME in a first network and AMF in a second network.
However, Youn discloses the preamble of “MME in a first network and AMF in a second network (Prov’838 of Youn, See pg.48, a connect between MME in EPC network and AMF in NGC network via interface NGx;
PNG
media_image2.png
459
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Hahn further discloses that ‘the context request message’ may include old GUTI, complete TAU request message, P-TMSI signature, MME address, and UE validated. The UE Validated indicates that the new MME has validated the integrity protection of the TAU message, e.g. based on native EPS security context for the UE. To validate the context request message, the old MME uses the complete TAU request message (Hahn, See ¶.85),” but does not explicitly disclose what Prov’838 of Youn discloses,
- a registration request message that requests registration of the UE (as rejected above, Hahn and Lu disclose the limitations) with the target AMF function and sending the integrity protected message to the source MME function via the target AMF function (Prov’838, See pg.53, Fig.4, item 4, Prov’838 of Youn discloses that AMF receives TAU request message from UE and send ‘UE context request’ to MME, wherein the ‘context request’ message includes TAU request message being integrated protected as Hahn disclosed.
PNG
media_image3.png
265
565
media_image3.png
Greyscale
That is, TAU request message being sent to AMF and the integrity protected context request message being send to MME via AMF as shown above; Examiner’s Note: Applicant’s Figure 2 shows the similar procedure as shown below: That is, Hahn and Lu disclose “the registration request (including TAU request + MAC) message” shown in the Figure:
PNG
media_image4.png
212
671
media_image4.png
Greyscale
).
Hahn and Lu disclose “wherein the sending includes sending the registration request message with the integrity protected message (Hahn, See ¶.83, the TAU Request message shall be integrity protected by the NAS-MAC and Lu discloses a registration request message” associated with the TAU request message).
Hahn and Youn disclose the limitation “the registration request message with the integrity protected message contained therein to the target AMF function (Hahn discloses that the TAU request message is integrity protected message as a registration request message and Prov’838 of Youn discloses the method of sending the TAU request message being integrity protected to AMF in the second network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “a registration request message that requests registration of the UE with the target AMF function and sending the integrity protected message via the target AMF function, wherein the integrity protected message contained therein to the target AMF function” as taught by Prov’838 of Youn and Lu into the system of Hahn, so that it provides a way for AMF to find the MME address that has previously managed the UE and request the UE context to the MME corresponding to the address (Prov’838, See ¶.760) and to register in the new area by sending the tracking area update request (Lu, See ¶.15).
Regarding claim 2, Hahn discloses “further comprising integrity protecting the integrity protected message with a Message Authentication Code (MAC) generated with the information shared between the UE and the source MME function, wherein the information is at least a part of an Evolved Packet System (EPS) security context (See ¶.83, the TAU Request message shall be integrity protected by the NAS-MAC. The eKSI, the NAS sequence number and the NAS-MAC are included if the UE has valid EPS security parameters. The NAS sequence number indicates the sequential number of the NAS message. The KSI is included if the UE indicates a GUTI mapped from a P-TMSI in the information element "old GUTI"; See Fig.7, TAU request message between UE and MME; See ¶.82, EPS bearer status, packet temporary mobile subscriber identity (P-TMSI) signature, additional GUTI, evolved key set identity (eKSI), NAS sequence number, NAS-MAC and KSI).”
Regarding claim 3, Hahn discloses “the integrity protected part of the registration request is an Evolved Packet System (EPS) Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message (See ¶.83, the TAU Request message shall be integrity protected by the NAS-MAC. The eKSI, the NAS sequence number and the NAS-MAC are included if the UE has valid EPS security parameters).”
Regarding claim 4, Hahn discloses “the EPS NAS message is integrity protected with the MAC generated using the information shared between the UE and the source MME (See ¶.83, the TAU Request message shall be integrity protected by the NAS-MAC. The eKSI, the NAS sequence number and the NAS-MAC are included if the UE has valid EPS security parameters. The NAS sequence number indicates the sequential number of the NAS message. The KSI is included if the UE indicates a GUTI mapped from a P-TMSI in the information element "old GUTI"; See Fig.7, TAU request message between UE and MME).”
Regarding claim 5, Hahn discloses “the EPS NAS message is a Tracking Area Update (TAU) request (See ¶.83, the TAU Request message shall be integrity protected by the NAS-MAC. The eKSI, the NAS sequence number and the NAS-MAC are included if the UE has valid EPS security parameters. The NAS sequence number indicates the sequential number of the NAS message. The KSI is included if the UE indicates a GUTI mapped from a P-TMSI in the information element "old GUTI").”
Regarding claim 6, Hahn and Lu disclose “the integrity protected message is a Tracking Area Update (TAU) request, such that the registration request contains the TAU request (Hahn, See ¶.83, the TAU Request message shall be integrity protected by the NAS-MAC; Lu, See ¶.15, the UE moves to the E-UTRAN coverage area of the MME, sends to the MME a tracking area updating (TAU) request for registering in the new area).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Hahn and Lu disclose “further comprising integrity protecting the TAU request with a Message Authentication Code (MAC) generated using the information shared between the UE and the source MME function (Hahn, See ¶.83 and Fig.7), wherein the registration request (Lu, See ¶.15) further comprises contains the MAC (Hahn, See ¶.83).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, it is a user equipment claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 9-14, they are claims corresponding to claims 2-7, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 15, Hahn discloses “wherein the information shared between the UE and the source MME function is at least part of a security context shared between the UE and the source MME function (See ¶.85, the UE validated indicates that the new MME has validated the integrity protection of the TAU message, e.g. based on native EPS security context for the UE; See Fig.7).”
Regarding claim 16, Hahn discloses “the security context is an Evolved Packet System (EPS) Non-Access Stratum (NAS) security context (See ¶.83, the TAU request message shall be integrity protected by the NAS-MAC. The eKSI, the NAS sequence number and the NAS-MAC are included if the UE has valid EPS security parameters; See ¶.85, the UE validated indicates that the new MME has validated the integrity protection of the TAU message, e.g. based on native EPS security context for the UE).”
Regarding claim 17, Hahn discloses “wherein the integrity protected message is a Tracking Area Update (TAU) request (See ¶.83, the TAU request message shall be integrity protected by the NAS-MAC. The eKSI, the NAS sequence number and the NAS-MAC are included if the UE has valid EPS security parameters).”
Regarding claims 18-20, they are claims corresponding to claims 15-17, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the claims, examiner has clarified and totally remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations, using newly found prior art by Hahn and Lu. The previous 103 rejection has been replaced with a new ground of 103 rejection over Hahn in view of Lu and further in view of Youn.
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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights