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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the application filed on 8/11/2026, in which claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9is/are pending.
Claim(s) 3 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicants argues with respect to Ni-Kunz-Kievit-Majmundar combination not teaches “sending a session establishment request towards a session management node that includes an indication of a user plane integrity protection mode supported by the UE, wherein the user plane integrity protection mode comprises that the UE supports user plane integrity protection in Long Term Evolution (LTE) packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) with a radio access node at a defined rate that is less than the full data rate…”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation only claims the request includes indicating of UPIP mode support the by UE… The UPIP mode is a mode and not the LTE PDCP or a RAN… Since the claim only reciting that the UE support UPIP mode, then the function is all is required… The activation of UPIP mode can be executed under the PDCP layer of the LTE is not part of the mode and not part of the claimed.
The “wherein clause” is a run-on which makes it hard to fully comprehend the function of the UPIP mode. Remarks such as “security attribute”, “requirement” or “max data rate” are not part of the claimed limitations.
The wherein clause contains 1. UE, 2. UPIP, 3. LTE, 4. PDCP, 5. RAN, 6. Data rate. The Applicant’s should elaborate in active language, clearly, how these are related to the UPIP mode.
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).
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims rejected under prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims reciting ““sending a session establishment request towards a session management node that includes an indication of a user plane integrity protection mode supported by the UE, wherein the user plane integrity protection mode comprises that the UE supports user plane integrity protection in Long Term Evolution (LTE) packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) with a radio access node at a defined rate that is less than the full data rate…”. It is unclear if the LTE PDCP and the RAN is part of the claimed as it is not a mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni et al. (US 20200029207 A1; hereinafter Ni) in view of Kunz et al. (US 20200037165 A1; hereinafter Kunz) further in view of De Kievit et al. (US 20220132316 A1; hereinafter Kievit) further in view of Majmundar et al. (US 20190215055 A1; hereinafter Majmundar).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Ni discloses a method performed by a user equipment, UE, for enabling user plane integrity protection of data in a security protocol in a radio access network, the method comprising:
sending a session establishment request towards a session management node that includes an indication of a user plane [integrity protection] mode supported by the UE (UE sends a session establishment request message to an SMF entity, where the session establishment response message may include a security attribute of the session corresponding to the security requirement. In an optional implementation, the session establishment response message may further include user plane protocol stack indication information, and the user plane protocol stack indication information is used to indicate the encapsulation format of the data of the application. [Ni; ¶8, 11, 115-132; Figs. 1-2, 4, 6 and associated texts]); and
receiving an activation message from a receiving radio access node, wherein the receiving radio access node is an evolved long term evolution radio access node (receiving the response message via the access node (AN), where the AN is an eNB [Ni; ¶8, 45, 115-132; Figs. 4, 6 and associated texts]). Ni discloses a User equipment (UE) determines a security attribute of a session of the UE; the UE sends a session establishment request message to a control plane node when the security attribute of the session of the UE does not meet a security requirement of an application. The session establishment request message is used to request to establish a session corresponding to the security requirement of the application. Ni does not explicilty discloses the message security attribute is an indication of a user plane integrity protection mode supported and receiving an activation message from a receiving radio access node that includes an indication to the UE to activate the user plane integrity protection mode for a data radio bearer established with the receiving radio access node and wherein the user plane integrity protection mode comprises that the UE supports user plane integrity protection in packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) with a radio access node [at a defined rate that is less than the full data rate]; however, in a related and analogous art, Kunz teaches these features.
In particular, Kunz teaches the UE request message and may indicate in the security capabilities the support of UP IP and/or support for selected integrity protection. In certain embodiments, the UE includes the UE Integrity Protection Maximum Data Rate for symmetric integrity protection mode and for asymmetric for DL only and/or UL only integrity protection mode, and the RAN node sends a RRC Connection Reconfiguration Request to the UE for UP security activation containing indications for the activation of UP integrity protection and ciphering for each DRB according to the security policy [Kunz; ¶69, 84]. The UE communicates with the RAN, supporting the UPIP security features over the PDCP radio protocol [Kunz; ¶11-12, 42-44, 67-73 79; Figs. 2A-2B and associated texts]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ni in view of Kunz to includes the supported integrity protection security capabilities with the motivation to improved integrity protection on the user plane [Kunz; ¶39].
Ni-Kunz combination discloses an UE establishing session with a RAN, the request message and may indicate in the security capabilities the support of UP IP and/or support for selected integrity protection. In certain embodiments, the UE includes the UE Integrity Protection Maximum Data Rate for symmetric integrity protection mode and for asymmetric for DL only and/or UL only integrity protection mode, and the RAN node sends a RRC Connection Reconfiguration Request to the UE for UP security activation containing indications for the activation of UP integrity protection and ciphering for each DRB according to the security policy. Ni-Kunz combination does not explicilty discloses a defined rate that is less than the full data rate; however, in a related and analogous art, Kievit teaches this feature.
In particular, Kievit teaches integrity protection in 4G and 5G system, especially in the context of Dual Connectivity (DC) involving both 4G and 5G base stations, where routing through eNB/gNB by using PDCP in user plane and specifying the UE’s UP IP capability, often time the maximum data rate the UE supports the UP IP out of the full data rate [Kievit, ¶303-306, 344, 383; Figs. 1-3, 7-9 and associated texts]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ni-Kunz combination in view of Kievit with the motivation to support max capabilities between UE and RAN.
Majmundar discloses RAN protocol architecture shown in FIG. 2, on the user plane, the Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) sublayers can reside at the CU 205, while the radio link control (RLC), media access control (MAC), and PHY layers can reside at the DU 210, wherein the DU, in example embodiments can comprise a relay device (a.k.a., relay, relay node (RN), relay transmission point (rTP)). As is known in the art, the PDCP layer, part of LTE layer 2 protocols, can responsible for compression of the IP header of user-plane data packets (e.g., using the robust header compression (RoHC) protocol) to reduce the number of bits transmitting over the radio interface, ciphering and integrity protection of RRC messages, in-sequence delivery and retransmission of PDCP service data units (SDUs), and duplicate detection. The RLC layer is responsible for segmentation, concatenation, ARQ retransmission (e.g., error correction through automatic repeat request (ARQ)) and in-sequence delivery to higher layers [Majmundar; ¶32-33; Fig. 2 and associated text]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ni-Kunz-Kievit combination in view of Majmundar LTE PDCP with the motivation to reduce the number of bits transmitting over the radio interface [Majmundar; ¶33].
Regarding claim 2, Ni-Kunz-Kievit combination discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein indication includes the defined rate for user plane integrity protection (defined the maximum data rate the UE supports the UP IP out of the full data rate [Kievit, ¶303-306, 344, 383; Figs. 7-9 and associated texts]). The motivation to support max capabilities between UE and RAN.
Regarding claim 4, Ni-Kunz-Kievit combination discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the session management node comprises a session management function (a session management function (SMF) entity [Ni; ¶44]).
Regarding claim 6, Ni-Kunz-Kievit combination discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the radio access node is an evolved long term evolution radio access node (LTE system [Kievit; ¶29-32]). The motivation to support max capabilities between UE and RAN.
Regarding claim 7, Ni-Kunz-Kievit combination discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the radio access node is a Next Generation Evolved Node-B (ng-eNB) (next generation eNBs (ng-eNBs) [Kievit; ¶36]). The motivation to support max capabilities between UE and RAN.
Regarding claim 8, Ni-Kunz-Kievit-Majmundar combination discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the user plane integrity protection mode is activated in the LTE PDCP for the data radio bearer (RAN protocol architecture shown in FIG. 2, on the user plane, the Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) sublayers can reside at the CU 205, while the radio link control (RLC), media access control (MAC), and PHY layers can reside at the DU 210, wherein the DU, in example embodiments can comprise a relay device (a.k.a., relay, relay node (RN), relay transmission point (rTP)). As is known in the art, the PDCP layer, part of LTE layer 2 protocols, can responsible for compression of the IP header of user-plane data packets (e.g., using the robust header compression (RoHC) protocol) to reduce the number of bits transmitting over the radio interface, ciphering and integrity protection of RRC messages, in-sequence delivery and retransmission of PDCP service data units (SDUs), and duplicate detection. The RLC layer is responsible for segmentation, concatenation, ARQ retransmission (e.g., error correction through automatic repeat request (ARQ)) and in-sequence delivery to higher layers [Majmundar; ¶32-33; Fig. 2 and associated text]. The motivation to reduce the number of bits transmitting over the radio interface [Majmundar; ¶33].
Regarding claim 9, Ni-Kunz-Kievit-Majmundar combination discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the session establishment request comprises a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Session Establishment Request message (wherein a protocol data packet (PDU) can be encapsulated by a PDU encapsulation and tunneling function according to the protocol sublayer based on routing information provided by a routing function [Majmundar; ¶22, 44-51; Fig. 7 and associated text]. The motivation to reduce the number of bits transmitting over the radio interface [Majmundar; ¶33].
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights