DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this 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 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, 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, 5, 10, 11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendi et al. (US PGPUB No. 2014/0308920) [hereinafter “Bendi”] in view of Kotha et al. (US Patent No. 8,072,973) [hereinafter “Kotha”]
As per claim 1, Bendi teaches a method comprising: analyzing communication behavior associated with one or more user equipment (UEs) (Abstract, determining attributes of a mobile device with a MDN and whether it is malicious, i.e. spam originator); receiving a signaling protocol message from a UE (Abstract, receiving a query from the mobile device); identifying identifier content associated with the UE (Abstract, identifying the registered MDN of the mobile device); identifying that the UE is a malicious UE based on the communication behavior ([0036], identifying the mobile device is a spam originator based on communication behavior of the device and the user of the device); and downgrading a communication mode associated with the UE based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE ([0020], each service such as SMS, MMS OR RCS has a device barring system – thus if any of these blacklist a mobile device it would have a “downgraded communication mode”).
Bendi does not explicitly teach downgrading from a first communication mode associated with the UE to a second communication mode based on identifying that the UE is not authorized for normal service. Kotha teaches downgrading from a first communication mode associated with the UE to a second communication mode based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE (Col. 6, lines 20-24, switching a rogue device to a quarantine network – this is interpreted as a downgrading the communication capability of the rogue device from a first full access mode to second limited access mode).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi with the teachings of Kotha, downgrading from a first communication mode associated with the UE to a second communication mode based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE, to protect the system from attacks that may compromise critical data or components.
As per claim 5, the combination of Bendi and Sultana teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: scanning traffic associated with communications exchanged with the malicious UE to identify whether the traffic includes malicious traffic (Bendi; [0011] and [0018], checking messages from a mobile device to see if they are spam).
As per claim 10, Bendi teaches a network element, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: analyzing communication behavior associated with one or more user equipment (UEs) (Abstract, determining attributes of a mobile device with a MDN and whether it is malicious, i.e. spam originator); receiving a signaling protocol message from a user equipment (UE) (Abstract, receiving a query from the mobile device); identifying identifier content associated with the UE (Abstract, identifying the registered MDN of the mobile device); identifying that the UE is a malicious UE based on the communication behavior ([0036], identifying the mobile device is a spam originator based on communication behavior of the device and the user of the device); and selecting a communication mode associated with the UE based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE ([0020], each service such as SMS, MMS OR RCS has a device barring system – thus if any of these blacklist a mobile device it would have a “relatively simpler communication mode”).
Bendi does not explicitly teach downgrading from a first communication mode associated with the UE to a second communication mode based on identifying that the UE is not authorized for normal service. Kotha teaches downgrading from a first communication mode associated with the UE to a second communication mode based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE (Col. 6, lines 20-24, switching a rogue device to a quarantine network – this is interpreted as a downgrading the communication capability of the rogue device from a first full access mode to second limited access mode).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi with the teachings of Kotha, downgrading from a first communication mode associated with the UE to a second communication mode based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE, to protect the system from attacks that may compromise critical data or components.
As per claim 11, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the network element of claim 10, wherein the first communication mode includes at least one capability that is not included in the second communication mode (Bendi; [0020], each service such as SMS, MMS OR RCS has a device barring system – thus blacklisted devices have a communication mode that has at least one less capability than other non-blacklisted devices).
As per claim 16, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the first communication mode is a rich communication services (RCS) communication mode ([0020], RCS has a device barring system).
As per claim 17, Bendi teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: analyzing communication behavior associated with one or more user equipment (UEs) (Abstract, determining attributes of a mobile device with a MDN and whether it is malicious, i.e. spam originator); receiving a signaling protocol message from a user equipment (UIE) (Abstract, receiving a query from the mobile device); identifying that the UE is a malicious UE based on the signaling protocol message and the communication behavior ([0036], identifying the mobile device is a spam originator based on communication behavior of the device and the user of the device); and selecting a communication mode associated with the UE based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE ([0020], each service such as SMS, MMS OR RCS has a device barring system – thus if any of these blacklist a mobile device it would have a “relatively simpler communication mode”).
Bendi does not explicitly teach the communication mode lacking at least one capability of being relatively simpler than another communication mode. Kotha teaches the communication mode lacking at least one capability of being relatively simpler than another communication mode (Col. 6, lines 20-24, switching a rogue device to a quarantine network – this is interpreted as a downgrading the communication capability of the rogue device which will have less access capability then before).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi with the teachings of Kotha, the communication mode lacking at least one capability of being relatively simpler than another communication mode, to protect the system from attacks that may compromise critical data or components.
As per claim 18, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the other communication mode is associated with another UE that is identified as a non-malicious UE (Kotha; Col. 6, lines 20-24non-malicious UE are given normal access/non-quarantined capabilities).
As per claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 15. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the other communication mode is a rich communication services (RCS) communication mode capability (Kotha; [0020], normal access includes RCS).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendi and Kotha in further view of Sultana (WO-2023094261-A1) [hereinafter “Sultana”].
As per claim 2, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication mode is a rich communication services (RCS) communication mode (Bendi; [0020], RCS has a device barring system).
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not explicitly teach that the second communication mode is a short messaging service (SMS) or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) communication mode. Sultana teaches the second communication mode is a short messaging service (SMS) or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) communication mode (Page 9, lines 31-37, placing UE in “limited service state” when it is not allowed to have normal service).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of Sultana, the second communication mode is a short messaging service (SMS) or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) communication mode, to protect the system from attacks that may compromise critical data or components.
As per claim 15, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the method of claim 10.
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not explicitly teach that the second communication mode is a short messaging service (SMS) or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) communication mode. Sultana teaches the second communication mode is a short messaging service (SMS) or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) communication mode (Page 9, lines 31-37, placing UE in “limited service state” when it is not allowed to have normal service).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of Sultana, the second communication mode is a short messaging service (SMS) or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) communication mode, to protect the system from attacks that may compromise critical data or components.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendi and Kotha in further view of Marappa Gounder (US PGPUB No. 2018/0295157).
As per claim 3, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the method of claim 1, stripping a capability off the malicious UE based on the downgrading the communication mode ([0020], RCS server can “blacklist” a UE which strips capabilities from the UE).
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not explicitly teach the capability including a chat capability, a group chat capability, or a file transfer capability. Marappa Gounder teaches the capability including a chat capability, a group chat capability, or a file transfer capability ([0022], RCS service includes chat, group chat and file transfers – thus these capabilities will be removed when RCS service is removed see Bendi at [0020]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of Marappa Gounder, the capability including a chat capability, a group chat capability, or a file transfer capability, to indicate all the capabilities provided by an RCS suite when the service removes a UE.
As per claim 14, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the network element of claim 10, wherein the communication mode being selected is utilized to disable the UE ([0015], configuring mobile device to communicate with limitations by barring mobile device from SMS, MMS OR RCS).
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not explicitly teach wherein the mode includes a chat function, a group chat function, or a file transfer function. Marappa Gounder teaches wherein the mode includes disable a chat function, a group chat function, or a file transfer function ([0022], RCS service includes chat, group chat and file transfers – thus these capabilities will be removed when RCS service is removed see Bendi at [0020]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of Marappa Gounder, wherein the mode includes a chat function, a group chat function, or a file transfer function, to indicate all the capabilities provided by an RCS suite when the service removes a UE.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendi and Kotha in further view of Chae (EP-3282628-A1).
As per claim 4, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not explicitly teach analyzing, by a rules engine model, the communication behavior to set a flag enabling an action to be performed by the UE. Chae teaches analyzing, by a rules engine model, the communication behavior to set a flag enabling an action to be performed by the UE ([0088], analyzing that the UE is attempting to transmit discovery data and using a rule to enable the UE to transmit up to a number of discoveries – the UE and the current number of discoveries will be tracked which is interpreted which functionally equivalent to setting a flag).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of Chae, analyzing, by a rules engine model, the communication behavior to set a flag enabling an action to be performed by the UE, to enable UE actions even while restrictions are being made.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendi and Kotha in further view of Synal (US PGPUB No. 2022/0060891).
As per claim 6, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the method of claim 1, the communication mode being demoted to be a demoted communication mode ([0020], each service such as SMS, MMS OR RCS has a device barring system – thus if any of these services blacklist a mobile device, the mobile device would be in a “demoted mode”).
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not teach further teaching transmitting a session initiation protocol (SIP) notify message, the SIP Notify message including supported capabilities. Synal teaches a session initiation protocol (SIP) notify message, the SIP Notify message including supported capabilities ([0036]-[0037], gathering of UE capability can be performed by the OMA server at any point (like after the demotion taught by Bendi) and can be sent via a SIP notify message).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of Synal, further teaching transmitting a session initiation protocol (SIP) notify message, the SIP Notify message including supported capabilities, to track what capabilities a particular UE may have and tailor communications accordingly.
As per claim 8, the combination of Bendi and Kotha the teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not explicitly teach wherein the identifier content includes a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN). Synal teaches wherein the identifier content includes a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN) ([0017], including a MSISDN with the identifying information of a UE).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of Synal, wherein the identifier content includes a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN), to track what capabilities a particular UE may have and tailor communications accordingly.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendi and Kotha in further view of Wolfson et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0028863) [hereinafter “Wolfson”].
As per claim 7, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not explicitly teach setting a flag based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE; and inserting the flag in a header in a signaling protocol reply, the flag indicating to an originating network from which the signaling protocol reply is received that the UE is the malicious UE. Wolfson teaches setting a flag based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE ([0042], identifying a potential attacker device and setting a tracing flag, see Abstract); and inserting the flag in a header in a signaling protocol reply, the flag indicating to an originating network from which the signaling protocol reply is received that the UE is the malicious UE (Abstract and [0047], inserting a tracing flag identifier in a response packet to indicate and track a potential attack).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of Wolfson, further teaching transmitting a session initiation protocol (SIP) notify message, setting a flag based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE; and inserting the flag in a header in a signaling protocol reply, the flag indicating to an originating network from which the signaling protocol reply is received that the UE is the malicious UE, to mark and track potential attack devices in a network and gather information to address the attack.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendi and Kotha in further view of Chiang et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0356635) [hereinafter “Chiang”].
As per claim 9, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not explicitly teach wherein receiving the signaling protocol message comprises receiving a session initiation protocol (SIP) subscribe message. Chiang teaches wherein receiving the signaling protocol message comprises receiving a session initiation protocol (SIP) subscribe message ([0033], UE sends a SIP subscribe message and system responds with appropriate message and other actions).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of Chiang, wherein receiving the signaling protocol message comprises receiving a session initiation protocol (SIP) subscribe message, to protect against common requests that may be used to attack or overload a system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendi and Kotha in further view of He et al. (US PGPUB No. 2023/0123249) [hereinafter “He”].
As per claim 12, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the network element of claim 10.
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not explicitly teach setting a default communication mode associated with the UE, wherein selecting the communication mode comprises maintaining the default communication mode as the communication mode based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE. He teaches setting a default communication mode associated with the UE ([0134], UE may have an original communication mode of one, two or both modes), wherein selecting the communication mode comprises maintaining the default communication mode as the communication mode based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE ([0134], maintaining the first or second communication mode based on identification as a malicious UE).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of He, setting a default communication mode associated with the UE, wherein selecting the communication mode comprises maintaining the default communication mode as the communication mode based on the identifying that the UE is the malicious UE, to protect network resources from more demanding modes that may be used to attack or overload a system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendi and Kotha in further view of Marzban et al. (US PGPUB No. 2024/0171992) [hereinafter “Marzban”].
As per claim 13, the combination of Bendi and Kotha teaches the network element of claim 10.
The combination of Bendi and Kotha does not explicitly teach transmitting a trust level corresponding to the UE being the malicious UE. Marzban teaches transmitting a trust level corresponding to the UE being the malicious UE ([0029] and [0137], transmitting trust labels or trust scores on UE’s).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Bendi and Kotha with the teachings of Marzban, transmitting a trust level corresponding to the UE being the malicious UE, to notify and track potentially harmful devices in the network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 10 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered. In light of the new amendments, new prior art references, Kotha and Sultana, have been introduced and cited to.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an after-final interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Papa et al. (US PGPUB No. 2016/0259923), Marzban et al. (US PGPUB No. 2024/0171992), Cabdal-Ventureira et al. ("Quarantining Malicious IoT Devices in Intelligent Sliced Mobile Networks," arXiv:2403.19731, March 28, 2024) and Kotulski et al. ("On end-to-end approach for slice isolation in 5G networks. Fundamental challenges," 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), Prague, Czech Republic, 2017, pp. 783-792, doi: 10.15439/2017F228) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including controlling the communication mode/s of a UE based on a determination of maliciousness.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 January 6, 2026