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 10/10/2025, in which, claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 3 is/are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
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’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims reciting “wherein the receiving radio access node is an ng-eNB”, without properly defining the abbreviation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim amendment reciting “wherein the indication includes an identifier for one of a plurality of predefined user plane integrity protection modes…”; however, there is no support for this amendment. The specification, as par 63 defines what it is “indicator UE_UP_IP_NG_ENB into a PDU Session Establishment Request message. UE_UP_IP_NG_ENB indicates that UE 102 supports User Plane integrity protection in LTE PDCP. UE_UP_IP_NG_ENB can also indicate the UE’s defined data rate for UP integrity protection”. Where UE_UP_IP_NG_ENB is the indicator, and there is no teaching of an identifier within the indicator.
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 4-5 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 Luo et al. (US 20200015088 A1; hereinafter Luo).
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 [Ni; ¶8, 115-132; Figs. 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; 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]. 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 wherein the indication includes an identifier for one of a plurality of predefined user plane integrity protection modes, and wherein the receiving radio access node is an ng-eNB; However, in a related and analogous art, Luo teaches these features.
In particular, Luo teaches that the RAN used are NG-RANs, and that send an indication indicating whether user plane integrity protection corresponding to the PDU session identifier is enabled, so that the second base station determines, according to the indication, whether to derive a user plane integrity protection key corresponding to the PDU session identifier. The UE encrypts and/or performs integrity protection on user plane data and an RRC message based on the encryption algorithm and the integrity protection algorithm selected by the base station and the user plane key and the control plane key, the RRC message sent by UE includes at least one of a UE identity, an original cell identifier, an authentication code shortMAC-I, a control plane CU indication or a user plane CU indication, and a PDU session identifier [Luo; ¶25-27, 333-335; Figs 1-2, 12, 23 and associated texts]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ni-Kunz combination with RRC message of Luo, with the motivation to indicate the preferred algorithm and method of communications.
Regarding claim 2 Ni-Kunz-Luo combination discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the user plane integrity protection mode comprises one of: the UE supports user plane integrity protection in PDCP with a radio access node at a full data rate, and the UE supports user plane integrity protection in PDCP with the radio access node at a defined rate that is less than the full data rate (the UE Integrity Protection Maximum Data Rate for symmetric integrity protection mode [Kunz; ¶69, 84]. The motivation to improved integrity protection on the user plane [Kunz; ¶39].
Regarding claim 4 Ni-Kunz-Luo 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]).
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