DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to restriction-response filed January 30, 2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-5 and 11-15) in the reply filed on January 30, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-10 and 16-20 were withdrawn. Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are being examined and are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/03/2024, 05/12/2025, and 8/20/2025 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/31/2024 have been accepted.
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 1-5 and 11-15 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.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recites “anchor node function,” “a key refresh indication container.” The meaning and scope of these terminologies are unclear and vague. Specification doesn’t provide any definition.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 12-15 do not cure the deficiencies.
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 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claims 1 and 5 are directed to a mechanism of determining and refreshing user key. The claimed mechanism includes receiving a key request, determining to generate a new remote user key (based on remote user key) and sending a key refresh indication container (to an authentication node and to a remote wireless device).
The claimed limitation as drafted, is nothing but information (e.g. receiving request, sending a key refresh indication container) gather, exchange and key generation/calculation process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitation in mind but for the recitation of “remote wireless device,” “processor,” “authentication node” which are generic computer components/devices. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in mind with a pen and paper such as a person skilled in the art can calculate/generate a new remote user key based on the remote user key. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites some data gathering/exchanging steps with one additional element – “determining to generate a new remote user key based on remote user key.” As discussed above, this step does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The authentication node, remote wireless device, and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 12-15 further add refresh user key based on local policy, user key lifetime, refresh indication container includes a key freshness parameter, a counter, a refresh indicator, and an authentication code, comparing authentication codes that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these steps do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The further steps also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by “pCR to TR33.847 – Update Solution#30,” 1-5 March 2021 hereinafter “Ref-A”
Regarding claim 1, Ref-A taught a method of wireless communication, comprising; receiving, at an anchor node function, a key request for a remote user key including a remote user key identifier; (Section 6.30.2, step 4. The AMF of the Relay UE sends a Relay Key Request to the AUSF of the Remote UE. The message includes Remote UE's SUCI or SUPI, Relay Service Code, Nonce_1 and the 5GPRUK ID) determining to generate a new remote user key based on the remote user key; (Section 6.30.2, step 11. If the 5GPRUK ID needs refreshing, a new 5GPRUK will be generated.) and sending a key refresh indication container to an authentication node and to a remote wireless device. (Section 6.30.2, steps 14-15. The AUSF of the Remote UE sends 5GKD, 5GKD Freshness and 5GPRUK_Info to the AMF of the Relay UE, and then further passes them to the Relay UE. Step 16. The Relay UE sends a Direct Security Mode Command to the Remote UE and perform authorization checks.).
Claim 11 recites similar limitations to claim 1, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 11, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Ref-A as above.
Regarding claim 3, Ref-A taught method of claim 1, wherein a refresh indication container is used to generate the remote user key (Section 6.30.2, step 11. If the 5GPRUK ID needs refreshing, a new 5GPRUK will be generated.).
Claim 13 recites similar limitations to claim 3, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 1, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Ref-A as above.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref A in view of US 20070233521 A1 to Wehba et al. hereinafter “Wehba”.
Regarding claim 2, Ref-A taught the method of claim 1, determining to refresh the remote user key based on a local policy of the anchor node (Section 6.30.2, step 11. The AUSF of the Remote UE derives 5GPRUK using Kausf and some other parameters, generates a corresponding 5GPRUK ID. The AUSF), Ref-A did not but the analogous art Wehba taught including a remote user key lifetime (Wehba, Para. 0118. The security key is renewed, and the finite lifetime is reset to its original time or some other increased finite time.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the invention of Ref-A by including the idea of including a remote user key lifetime as taught by Wehba because within lifetime of the stored security key, the security key automatically expires and renewed security key’s lifetime is reset or increased (Wehba, Para. 0118)).
Claim 12 recites similar limitations to claim 2, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 12, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Ref-A and Wehba combination as above.
Claims 4-5, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref A in view of WO 2020248624 A1 to Zhang et al. hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 4, Ref-A taught the method of claim 1 including freshness parameter (step 13), Ref-A was silent but the analogous art Zhang taught wherein the key refresh indication container includes a key freshness parameter, a counter, a refresh indicator, and an authentication code (Zhang, Detail section: 9. Security context: The security context may include, for example, encryption/decryption keys, integrity protection keys, freshness parameters (such as NAS Count), ngKSI, and security algorithms. In step 301b, the AMF network element sends a NAS SM command message to the UE. The NAS SM command message includes an integrity algorithm, an encryption algorithm, a NAS message authentication code (message authentication code, MAC),). The input parameters of the message verification code function include the key KAMF, and the input parameters of the message verification code function can also include at least one of the following parameters: NAS uplink counter, NAS downlink counter.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the invention of Ref-A by including the idea of the key refresh indication container includes a key freshness parameter, a counter, a refresh indicator, and an authentication code as taught by Zhang in order to protect the privacy of UE (Zhang, Detail section).
Claim 14 recites similar limitations to claim 4, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 11, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Ref-A and Zhang combination as above.
Regarding claim 5, Ref-A & Zhang combination further taught the method of claim 1, wherein the key refresh indication container enables the remote wireless device to generate an authentication code and compares the authentication code and a received authentication code (Zhang, See step 902. After step 902, the UE verifies the MAC. The UE calculates the MAC according to the message verification code function and the input parameters of the message verification code function. The UE determines whether the verification is passed according to the calculated MAC).
Claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 5, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 15, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Ref-A and Zhang combination as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2009113921 A1 (Haddad et al.): Using the verified SHID, AR(D) is able to identify the MAC address of D. AR(D) uses the MAC address to forward the packet to D. Upon receipt of the packet at D, D repeats the procedure to identify the correct SHID. Using the verified SHID, it identifies the correct Session Key 2. D applies the PSN (included in the packet header) and Session Key 2 to identify a counter value. If the counter value falls within a current window, the packet is accepted. Session Key 1 and the PSN are then used to decrypt the packet using the OTPE protocol as described above. D is also able to identify the fixed HD of S, and substitutes this into the packet header for the anonymised source HD before passing the packet to the higher protocol layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWNCHOY RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7471. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30A-5P ET.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached at 5712723787. 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.
/Shawnchoy Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438