DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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 regarding 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Issue #1
Applicant: Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites receiving a request for
subscriber information, obtaining information indicating that the subscriber information is stored in a database segment of a plurality of database segments, retrieving the subscriber information from the database segment, and responding to the request. These operations are performed within a wireless communication network using database segments and are not abstract ideas. The Office Action characterizes the claims as being directed to a "method of organizing human activity" involving slicing a data repository to reduce a single point of failure (Office Action, p. 3). Applicant disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite any economic practice or human activity. Rather, claim 1 recites a specific technical architecture for storing and retrieving subscriber information in a wireless communication network, including the use of a plurality of database segments storing different portions of subscriber profiles and determining which database segment stores subscriber information for a given subscriber. Such operations may be performed by network components and databases and cannot be reasonably construed as certain methods of organizing human activity. As such, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Certain method of organizing human activity may include multiple categories, but the one in question is fundamental economic principles or practices which can include “mitigating risk”. The technical elements are removed from the analysis to unveil the abstract idea. Taking a data repository and segmenting it into portions may reduce a single point of failure, hence, mitigating the risk.
Issue #2
Applicant: Even if claim 1 is considered to recite an abstract idea, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a specific arrangement in which subscriber profiles are distributed across database segments of a database, and in which
information is obtained identifying a database segment storing subscriber information prior to retrieving that information. This arrangement improves the operation of the wireless communication network by enabling distributed storage and controlled retrieval of subscriber data, thereby addressing issues such as scalability and single-point failure associated with monolithic data repositories. Claim 1 therefore recites more than merely implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer and instead defines a specific technical improvement to a wireless communication network.
Examiner: What is the technical problem and the technical solution specifically? What is it about the arrangement that is an improvement to the functioning of the computer or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment? How does the alleged improvement compare to what is done conventionally. To advance compact prosecution, Examiner requests identification in the specification for paragraphs that demonstrate how the limitations are indicative of integration into a practical application (e.g. improvements to the functioning of the computer or technical field, etc. beyond a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception). It’s unclear how enabling data distribution across multiple data segments and it's retrieval is an improvement to the wireless communication network technology itself.
Issue #3
Applicant:
Further, claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The Examiner asserts that the additional elements are generic computer components (Office Action, pp. 3-4). However, claim 1 recites multiple database segments storing different portions of subscriber profiles and obtaining an indication of which database segment stores subscriber information prior to retrieval. The Office Action does not identify any evidence that these elements, alone or in combination, are well-understood, routine, or conventional. Instead, the Office Action relies on conclusory assertions that generic components are used. Such assertions are insufficient to establish that claim 1 does not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner: Per the 101 rejection below, the claims do not recite significantly more. It s not clear how the solution overcomes the ‘apply-it’ standard indicated in the rejection (applicant points to the well known and conventional WRC standard, which the Examiner did not apply in the rejection rendering the argument moot).
Applicant’s arguments regarding 103, see p 8 “Baskaran retrieves subscriber information based on a subscriber identifier. This is different than obtaining information indicating which database segment of a plurality of database segments stores the subscriber information and retrieving the subscriber information from the identified database segment. Baskaran does not disclose partitioning the UDR into a plurality of database segments that store different portions of subscriber profiles. Baskaran does not disclose any mechanism for determining which database segment stores subscriber information for a given subscriber. Instead, Baskaran retrieves subscriber information directly from the UDR without performing any intermediate determination of a storage location across segmented portions of the repository…Anandan does not disclose an identity database that maps subscriber identifiers to specific database segments, nor does Anandan disclose identifying a database segment and then retrieving subscriber information from that identified database segment. The Office Action points to Anandan for teaching identification of where subscriber data resides (Office Action, p. 12). However, the cited portions merely describe retrieving subscriber data from different UDRs and do not disclose obtaining information indicating which database segment of a plurality of database segments stores subscriber information for a subscriber. The cited portions also do not disclose retrieving subscriber information from a database segment based on such a determination. Rather, Anandan discusses routing requests among different repositories, not resolving a storage location within a segmented database.”, filed 7/2/26, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Issue #1
Applicant: The cited art does not render obvious every limitation of claim 1. In particular, the cited art does not teach or reasonably suggest in response to the request, obtaining information indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in the database segment and upon obtaining the information indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in the database segment, retrieving the subscriber information associated with the subscriber from the database segment as recited by claim 1. The Office Action asserts that Baskaran teaches a Unified Data Repository (UDR) storing subscriber information and handling subscription data requests, and further asserts that Anandan teaches identifying where subscriber data resides across multiple repositories (Office Action, pp. 9-12). Baskaran and Anandan do not teach what the Office Action asserts. Baskaran generally relates to retrieving subscriber information from a UDR within a 5G core network. Baskaran discusses that the UDR stores subscription data and provides such data in response to requests from network functions. Baskaran further discusses receiving a subscription data request and retrieving subscriber information based on a subscriber identifier (Baskaran, Abstract; 1[0081], [0309]-[0313]; Fig. 11). Baskaran retrieves subscriber information based on a subscriber identifier. This is different than obtaining information indicating which database segment of a plurality of database segments stores the subscriber information and retrieving the subscriber information from the identified database segment. Baskaran does not disclose partitioning the UDR into a plurality of database segments that store different portions of subscriber profiles. Baskaran does not disclose any mechanism for determining which database segment stores subscriber information for a given subscriber. Instead, Baskaran retrieves subscriber information directly from the UDR without performing any intermediate determination of a storage location across segmented portions of the repository.
Examiner: Regarding, “in response to the request, obtaining information indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in the database segment” is taught by at least 0081, 0309-0313. Also, regarding “Baskaran does not disclose partitioning the UDR into a plurality of database segments that store different portions of subscriber profiles.” -- Per BRI, database segments can be any form of data segment where data can be distinguished as separate within a database. This can even refer to different data sets. Baskaran teaches for example in at least [0081] “The UDR is a repository of subscriber information and can be used to service a number of network functions. For example, the UDR may store subscription data, policy-related data, subscriber-related data that is permitted to be exposed to third party applications, and the like”. The UDR has a repository of different subscriber data sets related to subscribers including: a subscription data set, a policy-related data set, subscriber-related data set that is permitted to be exposed to 3rd party applications, etc. With regard to Baskaran does not disclose any mechanism for determining which database segment stores subscriber information for a given subscriber” – in at least Baskaran 0081, 0309-0312 it discusses the retrieval of slice specific security requirement information associated with a set of network slices associated with subscription data related to an authenticated UE. Obviously it can pull data associated with the data sets or segments associated with elements discussed in 0081 and/or retrieved SSI to identify corresponding subscriber data.
Regarding the phrase “upon obtaining the information indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in the database segment, retrieving the subscriber information associated with the subscriber from the database segment”, this is taught at least by Baskaran 0309-0312. Applicant should also mention the “identity database” missing from the paraphrasing of the limitation “in response to the request, obtain information from the [identity database] indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in an identified database segment of the two or more database segments” which is taught more explicitly through the combination of Anandan - and as stated in 0016 “UDR proxy 165 may obtain subscriber data from UDR 155, subscriber data from UDR 160, and subscriber data 145 from enterprise UDR 105”, and 0031 “Data relating to operations described herein may be stored within any conventional or other data structures (e.g., files, arrays, lists, stacks, queues, records, etc.) and may be stored in any desired storage unit (e.g., database, data or other repositories, queue, etc. .).”. As applicant mentions “Baskaran retrieves subscriber information directly from the UDR without performing any intermediate determination of a storage location across segmented portions of the repository” – However, the very lookup of the specific information will obviously look to find where the data is located and once a match is made will determine and retrieve the data from the segmented portion of the repository.
Issue #2
Applicant: Anandan does not alleviate this deficiency of Baskaran. Anandan generally relates to a UDR proxy that retrieves subscriber data from multiple UDRs associated with different network operators or enterprises and may route requests to those repositories. At best, Anandan discusses obtaining subscriber data from multiple external repositories and determining whether to access those repositories based on locally stored data (Anandan, Abstract; 11[0010]-[0016]). Accessing multiple distinct repositories via a proxy is different than maintaining a plurality of database segments within a repository and determining which database segment stores subscriber information for a given subscriber. Anandan does not disclose an identity database that maps subscriber identifiers to specific database segments, nor does Anandan disclose identifying a database segment and then retrieving subscriber information from that identified database segment. The Office Action points to Anandan for teaching identification of where subscriber data resides (Office Action, p. 12). However, the cited portions merely describe retrieving subscriber data from different UDRs and do not disclose obtaining information indicating which database segment of a plurality of database segments stores subscriber information for a subscriber. The cited portions also do not disclose retrieving subscriber information from a database segment based on such a determination. Rather, Anandan discusses routing requests among different repositories, not resolving a storage location within a segmented database. As such, the cited art does not teach or reasonably suggest in response to the request, obtaining information indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in the database segment and upon obtaining the information indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in the database segment, retrieving the subscriber information associated with the subscriber from the database segment as recited by claim 1.
Examiner Note: The Anandan reference again, more explicitly teaches how the identity database is configured to store subscriber information in the UDR. Anandan shows in at least 0016, 0031 & 0038 that a UDR may pull subscriber data from other UDR data sets or segments such as UDR 155, 160 and 145. The remaining arguments appear to be suggesting that Anandan doesn’t teach what has already been stated as being taught by Baskaran. In the future, applicant should concisely point to exact limitations and describe why the citations do not teach the limitation and not ignore the combination of references in teaching the entirety of the limitation(s). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant is welcome to discuss further with Examiner if helpful to advance compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a system or method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system Claims 9 & 16. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A method of operating a wireless communication network, the method comprising: receiving a request for subscriber information associated with a subscriber stored in a database segment of a plurality of database segments, wherein each database segment of the plurality of database segments stores a different portion of subscriber profiles stored across the plurality of database segments; in response to the request, obtaining information indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in the database segment; upon obtaining the information indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in the database segment, retrieving the subscriber information associated with the subscriber from the database segment; and responding to the request with the subscriber information associated with the subscriber.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Certain method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice-mitigating risk) of slicing a single data repository in order to reduce a single point of failure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation as a certain method of a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The wireless communication network and database in Claim 1 are just using generic computer components (in addition to the UDR in Claim 9 & non-transitory CRM, program and computing system of Claim 16). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on or with the use of generic computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements (including Claim 2, 17 – UDR – which is a generic computer component used to further implement the abstract idea; Claim 8, 15, 20 – 5G cellular communication network – which is a generic computer component used to further implement the abstract idea; Claim 10 – provisioning orchestrator - which is a generic computer component used to further implement the abstract idea) that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 & 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baskaran (US 20230269589) in view of Anandan (US 20200228986).
Claim 1.
Rejected using the same rationale as Claim 9.
Claim 2.
Baskaran in combination with the references taught in Claim 1 teach those respective limitations. Baskaran further teaches:
wherein the plurality of database segments make up a unified database repository (UDR) associated with the wireless communication network.
(Baskaran - [0077] The mobile core network 130 also includes multiple control plane (“CP”) functions including, but not limited to, an Access and Mobility Management Function (“AMF”) 132 that serves the 5G-RAN 115, a Session Management Function (“SMF”) 133, a Policy Control Function (“PCF”) 135, an Authentication Server Function (“AUSF”) 136, a Network Slice Selection Function (“NSSF”) 137, a Network Repository Function (“NRF”) 138, a Unified Data Management function (“UDM”) and a User Data Repository (“UDR”). [0081] The UDR is a repository of subscriber information and can be used to service a number of network functions. For example, the UDR may store subscription data, policy-related data, subscriber-related data that is permitted to be exposed to third party applications, and the like. In some embodiments, the UDM is co-located with the UDR, depicted as combined entity “UDM/UDR” 139.)
PNG
media_image1.png
467
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note: UDR is a database repository of subscriber data, and can include multiple segments for different portions of subscriber profiles or information including subscription data, subscriber-related data permitted to be exposed to third party apps, and more.
Claim 3.
Baskaran in combination with the references taught in Claim 1 teach those respective limitations. Baskaran further teaches:
wherein the request is from an authentication entity of the wireless communication network and
(Baskaran – [0077] The mobile core network 130 also includes multiple control plane (“CP”) functions including, but not limited to, an Access and Mobility Management Function (“AMF”) 132 that serves the 5G-RAN 115)
wherein the authentication entity sent the request for the subscriber information associated with the subscriber in response to receiving an authentication request associated with the subscriber.
(Baskaran - [0091] A first option for a UE Attach Procedure that supports network slice security includes deploying a Slice Security Server (SSS), which is a repository for the different slice security requirements. In the UE attach procedure, the UE sends an attach (i.e., registration) request to the RAN 210, which forwards the attach/registration request to a CP function, such as the AMF 215. In certain embodiments, the CP function (i.e., AMF 215) is unable to identify the UE 205 and thus initiates an identity request/response procedure with the UE 205. [0092] According to the first option, the CP function sends an authentication request to the EPS HSS or 5GS UDM, the request containing a UE identifier (e.g., IMSI, SUCI), a serving network identifier (“ID”), a network type, and one or more Slice IDs. The HSS/UDM sends a slice security request to the SSS, the request containing the Slice ID(s), and receives a slice security response [0309] When functioning as the UDM, the network interface 1040 may receive a subscription data request message from an AMF)
Claim 4.
Baskaran in combination with the references taught in Claim 1 teach those respective limitations. Baskaran further teaches:
wherein responding to the request with the subscriber information associated with the subscriber comprises responding to the request with one or more authentication vectors generated based on the subscriber information associated with the subscriber stored in the database segment.
(Baskaran – [0108] In one embodiment, the SSI is subscriber-specific parameter, i.e., for a first UE a first slice may include SSI, but for a second UE, the first slice does not include SSI. Here, the subscriber-specific parameter may be stored in the UDR. In another embodiment, the SSI is a slice-specific parameter, i.e., where the first slice would include SSI (or not) for all UEs. Here, the slice-specific parameter may be stored in the UDM (i.e., local configuration in the UDM for the S-NSSAI). Additionally, the UDM/UDR may contain the third-party service/slice security information locally stored for a UE as part of the Slice subscription data. [0314] When functioning as an AMF (e.g., with co-located SEAF), the processor 1005 performs primary authentication with a UE and the network interface 1040 sends a subscription data request message to a UDM. Here, the subscription data request message contains a Subscription Identifier (e.g., SUPI) of the authenticated UE and a Slice selection Subscription data IE. [0317] he processor 1005 enforces slice security according to the second Security Requirement Type via Cryptographic separation by using slice-specific inputs (e.g., SRID, SSI per S-NSSAI/S-NSSAI/Service type) in the ciphering and integrity protection while applying a default primary authentication-based security context for a NAS connection or by using slice-specific NAS keys (e.g., Knas-int and Knas-enc) for ciphering and integrity protection for a NAS connection.)
Claim 5.
Baskaran in combination with the references taught in Claim 1 teach those respective limitations. Baskaran further teaches:
wherein the request is part of an authentication call flow to verify that the subscriber is authorized to access one or more services of the wireless communication network.
(Baskaran - [0003] In a 5G System (“5GS”), an operator network may support different slice(s) to provide operator-provided services, as well as services provided (or controlled) by a third party. Here, the slices in the operator network meet both default operator-provided service (eMBB, URLLC, mIoT, V2X)-based slice requirements and third-party service provider-based slice requirements. [0005] Unified Data Management (“UDM”) function includes receiving a subscription data request message from an Access and Mobility management Function (“AMF”), said request message containing a Subscription Identifier of an authenticated User Equipment (“UE”) and a Slice selection Subscription data information element (“IE”). [0077] The mobile core network 130 includes several network functions (“NFs”). As depicted, the mobile core network 130 includes at least one UPF 131. The mobile core network 130 also includes multiple control plane (“CP”) functions including, but not limited to, an Access and Mobility Management Function (“AMF”) 132 that serves the 5G-RAN 115, a Session Management Function (“SMF”) 133, a Policy Control Function (“PCF”) 135, an Authentication Server Function (“AUSF”) 136, a Network Slice Selection Function (“NSSF”) 137, a Network Repository Function (“NRF”) 138, a Unified Data Management function (“UDM”) and a User Data Repository (“UDR”). The depicted mobile core network includes a Common Security Anchor Function (“CSEAF”) 134; however, in other embodiments the CSEAF is omitted as a discrete NF and its security functionality implemented by another NF in the mobile core network 140, such as the AUSF 136, the NSSF 137, or the NRF 138. [0079] The CSEAF 134 is a well-connected network function that handles security in the mobile core network 130. In some embodiments, the CSEAF 134 enforces a network slice security requirement (e.g., strict isolation between different slices and/or security domains) and controls security key generation and/or provisioning. The PCF 135 is responsible for unified policy framework, providing policy rules to CP functions, access subscription information for policy decisions in UDR. The AUSF 136 acts as an authentication server and allows the AMF 132 to authenticate the remote unit 105. [0108] the SSI is subscriber-specific parameter, i.e., for a first UE a first slice may include SSI, but for a second UE, the first slice does not include SSI. Here, the subscriber-specific parameter may be stored in the UDR. [0311] the processor 1005 retrieves the SSI from a UDR (e.g., a co-located and/or associated UDR. In certain embodiments, the UDR stores the SSI as part of UE subscription information and slice selection subscription data. In one embodiment, the SSI is a subscriber-specific parameter. In another embodiment, the SSI is a slice-specific parameter.)
Claim 6.
Baskaran in combination with the references taught in Claim 1 teach those respective limitations. Baskaran further teaches:
wherein the request is part of a session establishment call flow to establish a new session for the subscriber for accessing one or more services of the wireless communication network.
(Baskaran – [0078] The SMF 133 is responsible for session management (i.e., session establishment, modification, release; [0083] the various network slices may include separate instances of network functions, such as the SMF 133 and UPF 131. In some embodiments, the different network slices may share some common network functions, such as the AMF 132. [0264] the SMF 133 retrieves the Slice subscription Security Requirement Information (SSI) as part of Session Management Subscription data)
Claim 7.
Baskaran in combination with the references taught in Claim 1 teach those respective limitations. Baskaran further teaches:
wherein the subscriber information includes at least one of a quality of service parameter, a service entitlement, subscriber identity data, subscriber location information, or service plan details.
(Baskaran – [0081] The UDR is a repository of subscriber information and can be used to service a number of network functions. For example, the UDR may store subscription data, policy-related data, subscriber-related data that is permitted to be exposed to third party applications, and the like. [0327] The method 1100 begins and receives 1105 a subscription data request message from an AMF, said request message comprising a Subscription Identifier (e.g., SUPI) of an authenticated UE)
Claim 8.
Baskaran in combination with the references taught in Claim 1 teach those respective limitations. Baskaran further teaches:
wherein the wireless communication network is a Fifth Generation (5G) cellular communication network.
(Baskaran – [0002] The subject matter disclosed herein relates generally to wireless communications and more particularly relates to network slice security requirement determination, enforcement, and handling in Fifth Generation (“5G”) Systems. [0076] In one embodiment, the mobile core network 130 is a Fifth-Generation Core network (“5GC”))
Claim 9.
Baskaran teaches the following limitations:
A wireless communication network comprising: a unified data repository (UDR) comprising two or more database segments, wherein each database segment of the two or more database segments stores a different portion of subscriber profiles in the UDR;
(Baskaran - [0077] The mobile core network 130 also includes multiple control plane (“CP”) functions including, but not limited to, an Access and Mobility Management Function (“AMF”) 132 that serves the 5G-RAN 115, a Session Management Function (“SMF”) 133, a Policy Control Function (“PCF”) 135, an Authentication Server Function (“AUSF”) 136, a Network Slice Selection Function (“NSSF”) 137, a Network Repository Function (“NRF”) 138, a Unified Data Management function (“UDM”) and a User Data Repository (“UDR”). [0081] The UDR is a repository of subscriber information and can be used to service a number of network functions. For example, the UDR may store subscription data, policy-related data, subscriber-related data that is permitted to be exposed to third party applications, and the like. In some embodiments, the UDM is co-located with the UDR, depicted as combined entity “UDM/UDR” 139.)
PNG
media_image1.png
467
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note: UDR is a database repository of subscriber data, and can include multiple segments for different portions of subscriber profiles or information including subscription data, subscriber-related data permitted to be exposed to third party apps, and more.
a subscriber location function component configured to: receive a request for subscriber information associated with a subscriber stored in a database segment of the two or more database segments;
(Baskaran - [0005] Unified Data Management (“UDM”) function includes receiving a subscription data request message from an Access and Mobility management Function (“AMF”), said request message containing a Subscription Identifier of an authenticated User Equipment (“UE”) and a Slice selection Subscription data information element (“IE”). [0108] the SSI is subscriber-specific parameter, i.e., for a first UE a first slice may include SSI, but for a second UE, the first slice does not include SSI. Here, the subscriber-specific parameter may be stored in the UDR. [0311] the processor 1005 retrieves the SSI from a UDR (e.g., a co-located and/or associated UDR. In certain embodiments, the UDR stores the SSI as part of UE subscription information and slice selection subscription data. In one embodiment, the SSI is a subscriber-specific parameter. In another embodiment, the SSI is a slice-specific parameter.)
in response to the request, obtain information from the [identity database] indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in an identified database segment of the two or more database segments;
(Baskaran – [0309] When functioning as the UDM, the network interface 1040 may receive a subscription data request message from an AMF, said request message comprising a Subscription Identifier (e.g., SUPI) of an already authenticated UE and a Slice selection Subscription data IE”. In one embodiment, the subscription data request message is a Nudm_SDM_Get Request message. In another embodiment, the subscription data request message is a Nudm_SDM_Subscribe request message. [0310] Upon receiving the subscription data request message, the processor 1005 retrieves Slice-specific Security requirement Information (“SSI”) associated with a set of network slices (e.g., retrieved based on the received SUPI and/or Subscription data of the authenticated UE). Moreover, the processor 1005 controls the network interface 1040 to send a subscription data response message to the AMF. Here, the response message contains the retrieved SSI. [0311-0313])
upon obtaining the information indicating that the subscriber information associated with the subscriber is stored in the identified database segment, retrieve the subscriber information associated with the identified database segment; and
(Baskaran – [0310] Upon receiving the subscription data request message, the processor 1005 retrieves Slice-specific Security requirement Information (“SSI”) associated with a set of network slices (e.g., retrieved based on the received SUPI and/or Subscription data of the authenticated UE). Moreover, the processor 1005 controls the network interface 1040 to send a subscription data response message to the AMF. Here, the response message contains the retrieved SSI. [0311] In some embodiments, the processor 1005 retrieves the SSI from a UDR (e.g., a co-located and/or associated UDR. In certain embodiments, the UDR stores the SSI as part of UE subscription information and slice selection subscription data. In one embodiment, the SSI is a subscriber-specific parameter. In another embodiment, the SSI is a slice-specific parameter. [0312] In some embodiments, each retrieved SSI includes a SRID, a Slice ID (e.g., S-NSSAI) that identifies at least one network slice, and a Security Requirement Type for each identified network slice. In one embodiment, a first Security Requirement Type indicates that the corresponding network slice is to be protected using a common (i.e., not slice-specific) security context. In another embodiment, a second Security Requirement Type indicates that the corresponding network slice is to be protected using a dedicated (i.e., slice-specific) security context.)
respond to the request with the subscriber information associated with the subscriber.
(Baskaran - [0313] In some embodiments, the processor 1005 sends slice selection subscription data to the AMF in the subscription data response message, where the slice selection subscription data contains a set of subscribed S-NSSAI, i.e., indicating network slices to which the UE is subscribed, and SSI for each subscribed S-NSSAI.)
Baskaran does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Anandan teaches:
an identity database configured to store information indicating which database segment of the two or more database segments stores subscriber information for each subscriber profile of the subscriber profiles in the UDR; and
(Anandan - [0016] UDR proxy 165 may obtain subscriber data from UDR 155, subscriber data from UDR 160, and subscriber data 145 from enterprise UDR 105. The subscriber data from UDR 155, subscriber data from UDR 160, and/or subscriber data 145 may or may not have overlapping subscriber data/information. [0031] Data relating to operations described herein may be stored within any conventional or other data structures (e.g., files, arrays, lists, stacks, queues, records, etc.) and may be stored in any desired storage unit (e.g., database, data or other repositories, queue, etc.). The data transmitted between entities may include any desired format and arrangement, and may include any quantity of any types of fields of any size to store the data. The definition and data model for any datasets may indicate the overall structure in any desired fashion (e.g., computer-related languages, graphical representation, listing, etc.) [0038] FIG. 4 is a flowchart of an example method 400 performed by UDR proxy 165. Reference is also made to FIGS. 1 and 2 in connection with the description of FIG. 4. At 410, UDR proxy 165 obtains first subscriber data from a first UDR of a first network operator, second subscriber data from a second UDR of a second network operator, and third subscriber data from a third UDR of an enterprise. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to modify Baskaran with Anandan in order to improve the efficiency latency of the system by creating a UDR proxy configuration that obtains data of subscribers from multiple repositories/segments/clusters [Anandan – 0014].
Claim 10.
Baskaran in combination with the references taught in Claim 9 teach those respective limitations. Baskaran does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Anandan teaches:
a provisioning orchestrator configured to load the subscriber information for the subscriber profiles into the two or more database segments.
(Anandan – [abstract] Unified Data Repository (UDR) proxy obtains first subscriber data from a first UDR of a first network operator, second subscriber data from a second UDR of a second network operator, and third subscriber data from a third UDR of an enterprise. [0014] UDR proxy 165 may control access over the storage and retrieval of subscription data from multiple UDR clusters located remotely from geographically distributed users. In particular, UDR proxy 165 may use subscriber data stored locally to determine whether a particular request from NF 135 should be granted. [0018] UDR proxy 165 may store the subscriber data from UDR 155, the subscriber data from UDR 160, and subscriber data 145 locally (e.g., in local subscriber data cache 180). [0031] Data relating to operations described herein may be stored within any conventional or other data structures (e.g., files, arrays, lists, stacks, queues, records, etc.) and may be stored in any desired storage unit (e.g., database, data or other repositories, queue, etc.). The data transmitted between entities may include any desired format and arrangement, and may include any quantity of any types of fields of any size to store the data. [0033] The environment of the present embodiments may include any number of computer or other processing systems (e.g., client or end-user systems, server systems, etc.) and databases or other repositories arranged in any desired fashion.)
Claim 12.
Rejected using the same rationale as Claim 3.
Claim 13.
Baskaran in combination with the references taught in Claim 9 teach those respective limitations. Baskaran further teaches:
wherein the subscriber location function, to respond to the request with the subscriber information associated with the subscriber, responds to the request with one or more authentication vectors generated based on the subscriber information associated with the subscriber stored in the identified database segment.
(Baskaran – [0108] In one embodiment, the SSI is subscriber-specific parameter, i.e., for a first UE a first slice may include SSI, but for a second UE, the first slice does not include SSI. Here, the subscriber-specific parameter may be stored in the UDR. In another embodiment, the SSI is a slice-specific parameter, i.e., where the first slice would include SSI (or not) for all UEs. Here, the slice-specific parameter may be stored in the UDM (i.e., local configuration in the UDM for the S-NSSAI). Additionally, the UDM/UDR may contain the third-party service/slice security information locally stored for a UE as part of the Slice subscription data. [0314] When functioning as an AMF (e.g., with co-located SEAF), the processor 1005 performs primary authentication with a UE and the network interface 1040 sends a subscription data request message to a UDM. Here, the subscription data request message contains a Subscription Identifier (e.g., SUPI) of the authenticated UE and a Slice selection Subscription data IE. [0317] the processor 1005 enforces slice security according to the second Security Requirement Type via Cryptographic separation by using slice-specific inputs (e.g., SRID, SSI per S-NSSAI/S-NSSAI/Service type) in the ciphering and integrity protection while applying a default primary authentication-based security context for a NAS connection or by using slice-specific NAS keys (e.g., Knas-int and Knas-enc) for ciphering and integrity protection for a NAS connection.)
Claim 14.
Rejected using the same rationale as Claim 7.
Claim 15.
Rejected using the same rationale as Claim 8.
Claim 16.
Baskaran does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Anandan teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having program instructions stored thereon, wherein the program instructions, when executed by a computing system, direct the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising:
(Anandan – [0029] in general, memory 310 may be one or more tangible (non-transitory) computer readable storage media (e.g., a memory device) encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when the software is executed (by processor 320) it is operable to perform operations described herein.)
The remainder of the claim is rejected using the same rationale as Claim 9.
Claim 17.
Rejected using the same rationale as Claim 2.
Claim 18.
Rejected using the same rationale as Claim 3.
Claim 19.
Rejected using the same rationale as Claim 4.
Claim 20.
Rejected using the same rationale as Claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Brady (US 20130325983) provides a system and method for communicating in a telecom network via common key routing and proxies.
Lau (US 20200120721) provides a method and system for network slice identification and selection.
Castellanos (US 20220060325) provides handling USIMS with misconfigured routing IDS in 5GC.
Sridharan (US 20220201462) provides protecting a user data repository (UDR) from over-accumulation of subscription requests in a standalone 5G network.
De Luca (US 20230145137) provides technique for authenticating operators of wireless terminal devices.
Granberg (US 6128503) provides a method and apparatus for coordinating mobile communications network services with intelligent network services.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABDULMAJEED AZIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5046. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3:00 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, ALLANA LEWIN BIDDER can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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.
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights