DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 06/15/2026, wherein:
Claim 1-13 and 15-20 are pending.
Claim 1, 8, 13, and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 3, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20100186069 A1) in view of Wei et al. (US 20240251374 A1) and Edge (WO2018085017A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method for receiving information from a user equipment (UE) by a network device (Fig. 5), the method comprising:
identifying whether user consent for requesting location information of the UE is required (Fig. 5 step 501 and ¶0145-0146);
based on identifying that the user consent is required, identifying whether the user consent exists (Fig. 5 step 502-503 and ¶0146-0147);
based on identifying that the user consent exists (Fig. 5 step 507), receiving the location information of the UE from the UE in response to the request (Fig. 5 step 508 and ¶0145).
However, the reference is silent on details about the UE and network device is in NTN network and transmitting a request for location information of UE to the UE.
Wei discloses that the UE and network device is in NTN network (¶0036) and transmitting a request for location information of UE to the UE (Fig. 9 step 924 and ¶0097).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Liu to incorporate position information request in NTN device from Wei because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to provide the privacy check system ability to obtain location information in NTN network.
However, the reference is silent on details about wherein the network device is a base station, an access and mobility management function (AMF) or a mobility management entity (MME) in the NTN.
Edge discloses wherein the network device is a base station, an access and mobility management function (AMF) or a mobility management entity (MME) (¶0054 – “If privacy notification/verification was requested (e.g. at stage 3 or according to subscription information for UE 102 obtained by MME 131 from HLR/HSS 144) and UE 102 supports location service related call independent supplementary services, MME 131 may send an LCS Location Notification Invoke message to UE 102, as part of stage 8, with a location type indicating activation of a deferred location request, a deferred location event type indicating the type of location reporting event (i.e. entering into area, leaving from area, being inside area, periodic or motion) and an indication as to whether privacy verification is required. If privacy verification was requested, UE 102 may return an LCS Location Notification Return Result message to MME 131 as part of stage 8 indicating whether permission for the location request is granted or denied (e.g. by the user of UE 102). If UE 102 denies permission or does not return a response when a response is required, MME 131 may terminate the request as described further down for stage 11”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Liu and Wei to incorporate MME for performing privacy check from Edge because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize known component for controlling privacy of location data in response to location request.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Liu, Wei, and Edge discloses the method of claim 1, wherein whether the user consent exists is identified based on subscription information of the UE for the NTN (Liu - ¶0023 –“ based on the privacy information on the target UE's subscription”; Wei – 0036 disclose UE operating within NTN). The combined teaching would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the scope and content of the claim recites network device for performing the method of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the scope and content of the claim recites network device for performing the method of claim 3, therefore, being addressed as in claim 3.
Claim 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20100186069 A1) in view of Wei et al. (US 20240251374 A1), Edge (WO2018085017A1) and Zuo (CN 110166441 A).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Liu, Wei, Edge discloses the method of claim 1, however, silent on further detail of claim 2.
Zuo discloses wherein whether the user consent is required is identified based on a region to which the UE belongs (abstract disclose user defined privacy area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Liu, Wei, and Edge to incorporate user defined privacy area from Zuo because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve user experience by allowing user to customize privacy area.
Regarding claim 15, the scope and content of the claim recites network device for performing the method of claim 2, therefore, being addressed as in claim 2.
Claim 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20100186069 A1) in view of Wei et al. (US 20240251374 A1), Edge (WO2018085017A1) and Thomas et al. (US 20230345408 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Liu, Wei, and Edge discloses the method of claim 1, however, silent on further details of claim 4.
Thomas discloses wherein the location information of the UE is received through a non-access stratum (NAS) message (¶0211 – “In the case of UE-assisted positioning, the measurement report may be transmitted via the Provide Location message (higher layer NAS signaling), which is inherently non-dynamic when compared to the Type 1 and Type 2 configured grants, which are based on L1/L2 signaling For UE-based positioning, the Provide Location message provides the computed location estimate of the UE”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Liu, Wei, and Edge to utilize NAS message for transmitting location data from Thomas because doing so would applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize known protocol for data transmission.
Regarding claim 17, the scope and content of the claim recites network device for performing the method of claim 4, therefore, being addressed as in claim 4.
Claim 5-6, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20100186069 A1) in view of Wei et al. (US 20240251374 A1), Edge (WO2018085017A1), Thomas et al. (US 20230345408 A1), and Nair (US 20180309575 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Liu, Wei, Edge and Thomas discloses the method of claim 4, however, silent on further details of claim 4.
Nair discloses wherein the NAS message is protected using a security context (¶0057- “The NAS message is protected using the regular NAS integrity key K.sub.NASint created as part of the NAS security context with the MME 106 mentioned in step 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Liu, Wei, Edge and Thomas to incorporate NAS message protection from Nair because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve security of NAS message.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching Wei, Liu, Edge, Thomas, and Nair discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the security context is one of an activated security context, in use security context, and an existing context of the UE (Nair - ¶0057- “The NAS message is protected using the regular NAS integrity key K.sub.NASint created as part of the NAS security context with the MME 106 mentioned in step 1” – i.e. in use security context or existing context of UE). The combined teaching would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, the scope and content of the claim recites network device for performing the method of claim 5, therefore, being addressed as in claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, the scope and content of the claim recites network device for performing the method of claim 6, therefore, being addressed as in claim 6.
Claim 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20100186069 A1) in view of Wei et al. (US 20240251374 A1), Edge (WO2018085017A1) and He et al. (US 20200396711 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Liu, Wei, and Edge discloses the method of claim 1, however, silent on further details of claim 7.
He discloses wherein if the UE does not have an existing security context (Fig. 15A-B disclose scenario before UE establishing security context), the location information of the UE is received through a Security Mode Complete message to which ciphering and integrity protection are applied (¶0152 – “obtaining the location information of the terminal device reported by the terminal device may include: obtaining, by the mobility management device by using a NAS initial attach request message, a NAS registration request message, or a NAS SMC complete response message, the location information of the terminal device reported by the terminal device” wherein the security mode complete message is ciphering and integrity protected as presented in Fig. 15A-15B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Liu, Wei, and Edge to incorporate security protection for location information from He because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve communications security.
Regarding claim 20, the scope and content of the claim recites network device for performing the method of claim 7, therefore, being addressed as in claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 20240251374 A1) in view of Liu (US 20100186069 A1) and Edge (WO2018085017A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wei discloses a method for transmitting information by a user equipment (UE) in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (Fig. 9 and ¶0036), the method comprising:
receiving a request for the location information of the UE from a network device (Fig. 9 step 924 and ¶0097); and
transmitting the location information of the UE to the network device, in response to the request (Fig. 9 step 934 and ¶0101).
However, the reference is silent on details about subscribing to the NTN with subscription information including user consent for requesting location information of the UE.
Liu discloses subscribing to a with subscription information including user consent for requesting location information of the UE (¶0023 –“ based on the privacy information on the target UE's subscription”; ¶0076 – “Saving in AAA the privacy related information on the LBS that is registered by the user in the operator's Wimax network, i.e., saving in LS the information on security of the user's LBS services, such as which external clients or users can query about the user's location information, etc.… A user can conveniently add, delete or modify his or her privacy information. In addition, in the detailed description and following embodiments of present invention, the term "privacy" also involves authorization and security. And privacy checking can be also described as authorization checking and LBS-related security checking”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Wei to incorporate user privacy profile from Liu because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to allow user to customize privacy setting.
However, the combined teaching is silent on details about receiving a request for the location information of the UE from a network device based on the subscription information including the user consent for requesting location information of the UE, wherein the network device is a base station, an access and mobility management function (AMF) or a mobility management entity (MME) in the NTN.
Edge discloses receiving a request for the location information of the UE from a network device based on the subscription information including the user consent for requesting location information of the UE, wherein the network device is a base station, an access and mobility management function (AMF) or a mobility management entity (MME) (¶0054 – “If privacy notification/verification was requested (e.g. at stage 3 or according to subscription information for UE 102 obtained by MME 131 from HLR/HSS 144) and UE 102 supports location service related call independent supplementary services, MME 131 may send an LCS Location Notification Invoke message to UE 102, as part of stage 8, with a location type indicating activation of a deferred location request, a deferred location event type indicating the type of location reporting event (i.e. entering into area, leaving from area, being inside area, periodic or motion) and an indication as to whether privacy verification is required. If privacy verification was requested, UE 102 may return an LCS Location Notification Return Result message to MME 131 as part of stage 8 indicating whether permission for the location request is granted or denied (e.g. by the user of UE 102). If UE 102 denies permission or does not return a response when a response is required, MME 131 may terminate the request as described further down for stage 11”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Wei and Liu to incorporate MME for performing privacy check from Edge because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize known component for controlling privacy of location data in response to location request.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 20240251374 A1) in view of Liu (US 20100186069 A1), Edge (WO2018085017A1), and Thomas et al. (US 20230345408 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Wei, Liu, and Edge discloses the method of claim 8, however, silent on further details of claim 9.
Thomas discloses wherein the location information of the UE is received through a non-access stratum (NAS) message (¶0211 – “In the case of UE-assisted positioning, the measurement report may be transmitted via the Provide Location message (higher layer NAS signaling), which is inherently non-dynamic when compared to the Type 1 and Type 2 configured grants, which are based on L1/L2 signaling For UE-based positioning, the Provide Location message provides the computed location estimate of the UE”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Wei, Liu, and Edge to utilize NAS message for transmitting location data from Thomas because doing so would applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize known protocol for data transmission.
Claim 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 20240251374 A1) in view of Liu (US 20100186069 A1), Edge (WO2018085017A1), Thomas et al. (US 20230345408 A1) and Nair (US 20180309575 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Wei, Liu, Edge, and Thomas discloses the method of claim 9, however, silent on further detail of claim 10.
Nair discloses wherein the NAS message is protected using a security context (¶0057- “The NAS message is protected using the regular NAS integrity key K.sub.NASint created as part of the NAS security context with the MME 106 mentioned in step 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Wei, Liu, Edge and Thomas to incorporate NAS message protection from Nair because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve security of NAS message.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Wei, Liu, Edge, Thomas, and Nair discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the security context is one of an activated security context, in use security context, and an existing context of the UE (Nair - ¶0057- “The NAS message is protected using the regular NAS integrity key K.sub.NASint created as part of the NAS security context with the MME 106 mentioned in step 1” – i.e. in use security context or existing context of UE). The combined teaching would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 20240251374 A1) in view of Liu (US 20100186069 A1), Edge (WO2018085017A1), and He et al. (US 20200396711 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Wei, Liu, and Edge discloses the method of claim 8, however, silent on further details of claim 12.
He discloses wherein if the UE does not have an existing security context (Fig. 15A-B disclose scenario before UE establishing security context), the location information of the UE is received through a Security Mode Complete message to which ciphering and integrity protection are applied (¶0152 – “obtaining the location information of the terminal device reported by the terminal device may include: obtaining, by the mobility management device by using a NAS initial attach request message, a NAS registration request message, or a NAS SMC complete response message, the location information of the terminal device reported by the terminal device” wherein the security mode complete message is ciphering and integrity protected as presented in Fig. 15A-15B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Wei, Liu, and Edge to incorporate security protection for location information from He because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve communications security.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. 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).
/DUNG HONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
