DETAILED ACTION
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 (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2024, 01/22/2025, 08/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8, 10-12, 14, 16-20, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a process processing a request on a device. The underlying invention is merely directed towards data processing a request by computing functions and is therefore abstract. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. sending data). The data processing by computing functions does not enhance the functionality of the computer. Further, the claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not cure the deficiency of claim 1, therefore are also rejected 35 USC 101 for they dependency on claim 1.
Claim 10 is directed to a process processing a request on a device. The underlying invention is merely directed towards data processing a request by computing functions and is therefore abstract. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. sending data). The data processing by computing functions does not enhance the functionality of the computer. Further, the claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 11-12 & 14 do not cure the deficiency of claim 10, therefore are also rejected 35 USC 101 for they dependency on claim 10.
Claim 16 is directed to a process processing a request on a device. The underlying invention is merely directed towards data processing a request by computing functions and is therefore abstract. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. sending data). The data processing by computing functions does not enhance the functionality of the computer. Further, the claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 17-20 do not cure the deficiency of claim 16, therefore are also rejected 35 USC 101 for they dependency on claim 16.
Claim 23 is directed to a process processing a request on a device. The underlying invention is merely directed towards data processing a request by computing functions and is therefore abstract. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. sending data). The data processing by computing functions does not enhance the functionality of the computer. Further, the claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim 24 is directed to a process processing a request on a device. The underlying invention is merely directed towards data processing a request by computing functions and is therefore abstract. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. sending data). The data processing by computing functions does not enhance the functionality of the computer. Further, the claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim 25 is directed to a process processing a request on a device. The underlying invention is merely directed towards data processing a request by computing functions and is therefore abstract. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. sending data). The data processing by computing functions does not enhance the functionality of the computer. Further, the claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 16 & 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Forsberg et al. (US 2008/0002829), hereon referred to as Forsberg, in view of Ye et al. (US 2019/0068361), and hereon referred to as Ye.
In regards to claims 1, 10, 16 & 23-25 Forsberg discloses sending an application key update request to a second network element according to a user identity in response to an application key corresponding to a key identifier carried in a session establishment request being invalid (The MME sends a message to the user equipment to request for a user identity; the management entity determines the home network of the user equipment sending a messages along with a public and secret key; Validly authenticated network can updates the user equipment with a valid new public key, key identifier and other information with a validity period; After the lifetime expires the public key is considered to be invalid; Paragraphs 0040-0050).
However, Forsberg does not disclose determining an updated application key according to a message associated with the application key update request. However, in an analogous art Ye discloses determining an updated application key according to a message associated with the application key update request (The gateway sends a key update request, and receives a response; the gateway validates the response message; the gateway confirm the key has been successfully injected at the desired key slot; Paragraphs 0050-0060).
At the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings disclosed by Forsberg, with the teachings disclosed by Ye regarding determining an updated application key according to a message associated with the application key update request. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide additional security in the distribution of cryptographic keys (Ye; Paragraph 0001).
In regards to claim 2 Ye discloses generating a key update parameter, wherein the key update parameter is carried in the application key update request (ECU to updated the key slot the value of the key K in a secure manner; Paragraphs 0050-0060).
In regards claim 3, Ye discloses wherein the message associated with the application key update request comprises an application key update response message sent by the second network element; and determining an updated application key according to a message associated with the application key update request comprises: determining the updated application key based on the key update parameter in response to receiving the application key update response message sent by the second network element (A request is received and a response is sent back, and a validation of the response with the gateway; Paragraphs 0050-0060).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Forsberg and Ye discloses wherein determining the updated application key based on the key update parameter comprises :performing an operation using a key generation function to obtain the updated application key according to the key update parameter and an invalid application key. (The elements presented in the claim(s) do not contain any additional features, do not present any inventive step or novelty not addressed/presented the combination of Forsberg and Ye. Examiner takes official notice, that these elements are commonly known, minor design details that are derivable from the prior art and are well known, and obvious to an ordinary skill in the art. The additional features of these claims represent normal design options, which the skilled person would implement the combination of Forsberg and Ye, depending on the circumstances, without exercising any inventive activity).
In regards to claim 5, Ye discloses further comprising: configuring a validity period of the updated application key (A validly authenticated network can updated the equipment with a valid new public key, key identifier, and other information with a validity period; Paragraphs 0050-0060).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Forsberg and Ye discloses wherein the key update parameter is a random number generated by a hash function (The elements presented in the claim(s) do not contain any additional features, do not present any inventive step or novelty not addressed/presented the combination of Forsberg and Ye. Examiner takes official notice, that these elements are commonly known, minor design details that are derivable from the prior art and are well known, and obvious to an ordinary skill in the art. The additional features of these claims represent normal design options, which the skilled person would implement the combination of Forsberg and Ye, depending on the circumstances, without exercising any inventive activity).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Forsberg and Ye discloses wherein sending an application key update request to a second network element according to a user identity comprises: sending the application key update request to the second network element through a Network Exposure Function (NEF) network element in response to the first network element being located outside an operator network (The elements presented in the claim(s) do not contain any additional features, do not present any inventive step or novelty not addressed/presented the combination of Forsberg and Ye. Examiner takes official notice, that these elements are commonly known, minor design details that are derivable from the prior art and are well known, and obvious to an ordinary skill in the art. The additional features of these claims represent normal design options, which the skilled person would implement the combination of Forsberg and Ye, depending on the circumstances, without exercising any inventive activity).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Forsberg and Ye, in view of Sahin et al. (US 2022/0070649), hereon referred to as Sahin.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Forsberg and Ye does not disclose wherein sending, according to the application key update request, indication information for updating an application key comprises: sending a user data management notification to an Access Management Function (AMF) network element according to the application key update request, and sending a downlink Non- Access Stratum (NAS) transport message sending, according to the application key update request, indication information for updating an application key comprises: sending a user data management notification to an Access Management Function (AMF) network element according to the application key update request, and sending a downlink Non- Access Stratum (NAS) transport message to a user equipment through the AMF network element (UDM notifying AMF; the UDM notifies the changes of the user profile to the affected AMF; the VSPN AMF sends a messages to the communication device; Paragraphs 0180-0200).
At the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings disclosed by the combination of Forsberg and Ye, with the teachings disclosed by Sahin regarding sending, according to the application key update request, indication information for updating an application key comprises: sending a user data management notification to an Access Management Function (AMF) network element according to the application key update request, and sending a downlink Non- Access Stratum (NAS) transport message to a user equipment through the AMF network element. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide additional security in the distribution of cryptographic keys (Ye; Paragraph 0001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12, 14, 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARIF E ULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-5453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-5:30.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/SHARIF E ULLAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495