CTNF 18/625,371 CTNF 83530 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Clarity of the Record - Contingent Limitation Contingent limitations are discussed in the MPEP at 211.04(II) and 2143.03. Specifically, MPEP 2111.04 recites the following regarding ‘method’ claims: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.” For clarity of the record, it is noted that claims 1, 5 and 12 (the independent claims) each recite contingent limitations, and to go one step further, each recite multiple contingent limitations and layering of contingent limitations. Specifically (but not exclusively), it is noted that the entire ‘transmitting’ step in claim 1, the entire ‘transmitting’ step in claim 5; and the entire ‘receiving’ step in claim 12 are contingent limitations. Further note is made that it appears every dependent claim is actually further limiting a contingent limitation. For the sake of compact prosecution, an attempt has been made to review and find art for the claimed limitations, but keep in mind allowable subject matter cannot be ascertained for the design based from a contingent limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3 rd Generation Partnership Project (herein after 3G)(NPL “Security Aspects of Proximity based Services (ProSe) in the 5G System (5GS)(Release 17)”, see IDS) in view of Samsung (herein after Sam)(NPL “Proposal for U2NW relay authentication, authorization and key management”, see IDS) . Re claim 1, 3G discloses a wireless communication method comprising; receiving, by a proximity service anchor function (Figure 6.3.3.2.2-1 – PKMF of Relay UE – Steps 2-4a; Pages 23-25 steps 2-4a) from a remote wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.2.2-1 – Remote UE – Steps 2-4a; Pages 23-25 steps 2-4a) via a relay wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.2.2-1 – UE-Network relay – Steps 2-4a; Pages 23-25 steps 2-4a), a request for a key used for a communication between the remote wireless communication terminal and the relay wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.2.2-1 –Steps 2-4a; Pages 23-25 steps 2-4a), and the request comprising at least one of: a Proximity Remote User Key (PRUK) identifier (Fig 6.3.3.2.2-1, step 3-4a; Pages 23-25 description of steps 3-4a –‘PRUK ID’), an identity of the remote wireless communication terminal (Fig 6.3.3.2.2-1, step 3-4a; Pages 23-25 description of steps 3-4b –‘ID of the remote UE’), a relay service code (Fig 6.3.3.2.2-1, step 3-4a; Pages 23-25 description of steps 3-4a –‘Relay Service Code’), or a first nonce (Fig 6.3.3.2.2-1, step 3-4a; Pages 23-25, 28, 30 description of steps 3-4a –‘freshness parameter 1’); and transmitting, by the proximity service anchor function (Fig 6.3.3.2.2-1, step 4a-5a; Pages 23-25, description of steps 4b-4c – authorization processing), authentication signaling (Fig 6.3.3.2.2-1, step 4a-5a; Pages 23-25, description of steps 4b-4c – authorization processing) in response to the proximity service anchor node not being able to find a PRUK stored locally corresponding to the PRUK identifier (Fig 6.3.3.2.2-1, step 4a-5a; Pages 23-25, description of steps 4b-4c – ‘not locally available’) or the proximity service anchor node determining to authenticate the remote wireless communication terminal (Fig 6.3.3.2.2-1, step 4a-5a; Pages 23-25, description of steps 4b-4c – authorization processing); however, 3G fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the authentication signaling is to the remote wireless communication terminal via the relay wireless communication terminal and (2) comprises a request for the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal or a reject message. Regarding items (1) and (2) above, this design is however disclosed by Sam. Sam discloses (1) wherein the authentication signaling (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 21-28, specifically signal 26) is to the remote wireless communication terminal (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 21-28, specifically signal 26) via the relay wireless communication terminal (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 21-28, specifically signal 26) and (2) comprises a request for the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 21-28) or a reject message (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 19-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of 3G in order to incorporate the authentication signaling of Sam based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to both reject connections without proper credential checks for the user in order to promote safety and prevent overcrowding of the communication resources, while further allowing for the communication for the user to provide required credentials for the design to affirm the process of connection improving the connection process and reducing excessive rejection of connection requests. Re claim 2, the combined disclosure of 3G and Sam as a whole discloses the wireless communication method of claim 1, Sam further discloses wherein the reject message (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 13-15 and 19-20 – ‘if security content retrieval fail’) comprises a value indicating a reject reason indicating the PRUK identifier of the remote wireless communication terminal being not found (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 13-15 and 19-20 – ‘if security content retrieval fail’). Re claim 3, the combined disclosure of 3G and Sam as a whole discloses the wireless communication method of claim 1, Sam further discloses wherein the proximity service anchor function receives a key request message (Page 3-4; Image and description of step 21-22) including the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal after transmitting the reject message (Page 3-4; Image and description of step 21-22). Re claim 4, the combined disclosure of 3G and Sam as a whole discloses the wireless communication method of claim 1, Sam further discloses wherein the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal comprises a Subscription Concealed Identifier (SUCI) of the remote wireless communication terminal (Page 3-4; Image and description of step 21-22 – ‘SUCI’). Re claim 5, 3G discloses a wireless communication method comprising: receiving, by an authentication server function (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – ‘AUSF’; Page 26-27 description of steps 2-5) from a remote wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – ‘Remote UE’; Page 26-27 description of steps 1-5) via a relay wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – ‘Relay UE’; Page 26-27 description of steps 1-5), a request for a key used for a communication between the remote wireless communication terminal and the relay wireless communication terminal (Page 26-27 description of steps 1-5), and the request comprising at least one of a Proximity Remote User Key (PRUK) identifier, an identity of the remote wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Steps 2-5 ‘Remote UE SUCI’; Page 26-27 description of steps 2-5), a relay service code (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Steps 2-5 ‘Relay Service Code’; Page 26-27 description of steps 2-5), or a first nonce (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Steps 2-5 ‘Nonce_1’; Page 26-27 description of steps 2-5); and transmitting, by the authentication server function (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Step 7 ‘AUSF’ to ‘Remote’ through ‘Relay”; Page 26-27 description of steps 6-10) to the remote wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Step 7 ‘AUSF’ to ‘Remote’ through ‘Relay”; Page 26-27 description of steps 6-10) via the relay wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Step 7 ‘AUSF’ to ‘Remote’ through ‘Relay”; Page 26-27 description of steps 6-10), an authentication signaling in response to the authentication server function determining to authenticate the remote wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Step 6-7 ‘AUSF’ to ‘Remote’ through ‘Relay”; Page 26-27 description of steps 6-10); however, 3G fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the authentication signaling comprises a request for the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 21-28) or a reject message (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 19-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of 3G in order to incorporate the authentication signaling of Sam based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to both reject connections without proper credential checks for the user in order to promote safety and prevent overcrowding of the communication resources, while further allowing for the communication for the user to provide required credentials for the design to affirm the process of connection improving the connection process and reducing excessive rejection of connection requests. Re claim 6, the combined disclosure of 3G and Sam as a whole discloses the wireless communication method of claim 5, Sam further discloses wherein the reject message comprises a value indicating a reject reason (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 13-15 and 19-20 – ‘if security content retrieval fail’) indicating the PRUK identifier of the remote wireless communication terminal not found in a network (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 13-15 and 19-20 – ‘if security content retrieval fail’). Re claim 7, the combined disclosure of 3G and Sam as a whole discloses the wireless communication method of claim 5, Sam further discloses wherein the authentication server function receiving a key request message (Page 3-4; Image and description of step 21-22) including the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal after transmitting the reject message (Page 3-4; Image and description of step 21-22). Re claim 8, the combined disclosure of 3G and Sam as a whole discloses the wireless communication method of claim 5, 3G further discloses wherein the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal comprises a Subscription Concealed Identifier (SUCI) of the remote wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Steps 2-5 ‘Remote UE SUCI’; Page 26-27 description of steps 2-5). Claim 9 recites an entirely contingent limitation and is rejected in light of the rejection of claim 5. Claim 10 recites an entirely contingent limitation and is rejected in light of the rejection of claim 8. Claim 11 recites an entirely contingent limitation and is rejected in light of the rejection of claim 10. Re claim 12, 3G discloses a wireless communication method comprising: transmitting, by a remote wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – ‘Remote UE’; Page 26-27 description of steps 1-5) to a proximity service anchor function [contingent limitation no providing patentable weight] or an authentication server function (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – ‘AUSF’; Page 26-27 description of steps 2-5), via a relay wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – ‘Relay UE’; Page 26-27 description of steps 1-5), a request for a key (Page 26-27 description of steps 1-5) used for a communication between the remote wireless communication terminal (Page 26-27 description of steps 1-5) and the relay wireless communication terminal (Page 26-27 description of steps 1-5), and the request comprising at least one of: a Proximity Remote User Key (PRUK) identifier [contingent limitation no providing patentable weight], an identity of the remote wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Steps 2-5 ‘Remote UE SUCI’; Page 26-27 description of steps 2-5), a relay service code (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Steps 2-5 ‘Relay Service Code’; Page 26-27 description of steps 2-5), or a first nonce (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Steps 2-5 ‘Nonce_1’; Page 26-27 description of steps 2-5); and receiving (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Step 7 ‘AUSF’ to ‘Remote’ through ‘Relay”; Page 26-27 description of steps 6-10), by the remote wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Step 7 ‘AUSF’ to ‘Remote’ through ‘Relay”; Page 26-27 description of steps 6-10) from the proximity service anchor function [contingent limitation no providing patentable weight] or the authentication server function (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Step 7 ‘AUSF’ to ‘Remote’ through ‘Relay”; Page 26-27 description of steps 6-10), via the relay wireless communication terminal, an authentication signaling (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Step 7 ‘AUSF’ to ‘Remote’ through ‘Relay”; Page 26-27 description of steps 6-10) or a reject message in response to the proximity service anchor node not being able to find a PRUK stored locally corresponding to the PRUK identifier [contingent limitation no providing patentable weight] or the proximity service anchor node determining to authenticate the remote wireless communication terminal [contingent limitation no providing patentable weight]; however, 3G fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the authentication signaling comprises a request for the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal (Page 3-4; Image and description of steps 21-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of 3G in order to incorporate the authentication signaling of Sam based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to both reject connections without proper credential checks for the user in order to promote safety and prevent overcrowding of the communication resources, while further allowing for the communication for the user to provide required credentials for the design to affirm the process of connection improving the connection process and reducing excessive rejection of connection requests. Claim 13 recites an entirely contingent limitation and is rejected in light of the rejection of claim 12. Re claim 14; the combined disclosure of 3G and Sam as a whole discloses the wireless communication method of claim 12, 3G further discloses wherein the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal comprises a Subscription Concealed Identifier (SUCI) of the remote wireless communication terminal (Figure 6.3.3.3.2-1 – Steps 2-5 ‘Remote UE SUCI’; Page 26-27 description of steps 2-5). Re claim 15; the combined disclosure of 3G and Sam as a whole discloses the wireless communication method of claim 12, wherein the remote wireless communication terminal transmits (Page 3-4; Image and description of step 21-28), to the proximity service anchor function or the authentication server function (Page 3-4; Image and description of step 21-28), a new request for the key (Page 3-4; Image and description of step 21-28) comprising the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal according (Page 3-4; Image and description of step 21-28) to the request for the identity of the remote wireless communication terminal or the reject message (Page 3-4; Image and description of step 21-28). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm. 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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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. /MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/625,371 Page 2 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/625,371 Page 3 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/625,371 Page 4 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/625,371 Page 5 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/625,371 Page 6 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/625,371 Page 7 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/625,371 Page 8 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/625,371 Page 9 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/625,371 Page 10 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/625,371 Page 11 Art Unit: 2631
Prosecution Insights