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 .
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 9/27/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 3, 4, 6-8, 11, and 16-18 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.
As to claims 3 and 11, the limitations require second attestation identity information which implies there is first attestation identity information which has not been mentioned. There seems to be a correspondence between second attestation identity information and second attestation information, but it is unclear what a third attestation result is in response to. Are there first and second attestation results?
As to claim 4, the limitation “the trustworthiness verification” lacks antecedent basis. The limitations require second attestation identity information which implies there is first attestation identity information which has not been mentioned. “Verification of a third attestation result” implies that there is a first attestation result and a second attestation result. It is not clear how many results there are and what they are in response to.
As to claim 6, the “third trusted certificate” implies that there are 2 other certificates that are not mentioned in the claim language.
As to claims 7 and 16, the limitations require the rejection of a service request. This is not a positive recitation of a limitation. It is inherent that a service request has the potential of failing for any number of reasons. The “third trusted certificate” implies that there are 2 other certificates that are not mentioned in the claim language.
As to claims 8 and 17, the limitation “the second attestation information” lacks antecedent basis. “Second attestation information” and “second challenge data” imply first attestation information and first challenge data which are not mentioned in the claim language.
As to claim 18, the limitation “the network function service consumer” lacks antecedent basis.
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 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) sending a request for service and receiving a response indicating if the service is available. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because all this does is alert the user to the availability of the requested service and nothing more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because checking for the availability of a product or service is something that is done every day by people looking in a newspaper or asking the owner of a business over the phone or in person.
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 1-7, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. No. 2024/0205198 to Sood et al. (hereinafter Sood).
As to claims 1 and 18, Sood teaches:
a. A processing circuit and an interface, wherein the processing circuit is configured to execute computer instructions (processors executing instructions) (Sood, [0073-0074]).
b. Sending a service request for requesting to a service provided by a network function service provider (service request) (Sood, [0050]).
c. Receiving a service response, wherein the service response indicates whether the requested service is available to the network function service consumer (response from network function service provider indicates availability of a requested service to a particular requestor and the access policies of the requested service) (Sood, [0038 and [0050]).
As to claims 2 and 19, Sood teaches the service response is associated with:
a. Whether the request for the service is accepted (response from network function service provider indicates availability of a requested service to a particular requestor and the access policies of the requested service and the establishment of a distributed trusted computing base (DTCB) for secure access to the requested service) (Sood, [0038, 0050, and 0054]).
b. A result of trustworthiness verification of the network function consumer (attestation and trustworthiness are part of the authentication/authorization scheme) (Sood, [0059]).
As to claims 3, 11, and 20, Sood teaches receiving second attestation identity information, wherein the second attestation identity information comprises requests to obtain second attestation information for verifying whether the network function service consumer is trusted or a third attestation result, wherein the third attestation result comprises an attestation result indicating that the network service consumer has been attested to be trusted (both attestation and trustworthiness are used to verify service requests from consumers) (Sood, [0057-0059]). It is noted that Sood does not break down the attestation and trustworthiness measures into discrete parts.
As to claims 4 and 12, Sood teaches the service response indicates that the request for the service is accepted, the trustworthiness verification comprises one of: verification of second attestation information or verification of a third attestation result, the second attestation information is for verifying whether the network function service consumer is trusted, and the third attestation result comprises an attestation result indicating that the network function service consumer has been attested to be trusted (both attestation and trustworthiness are used to verify service requests from consumers) (Sood, [0057-0059]). It is noted that Sood does not break down the attestation and trustworthiness measures into discrete parts.
As to claims 5, 13, and 15, Sood teaches the trustworthiness verification further comprises verifying a first attestation result, and the first attestation result comprises an attestation result indicating that the network function service consumer is attested by a network repository network element to be trusted (both attestation and trustworthiness are used to verify service requests from consumers) (Sood, [0057-0059]). It is noted that Sood does not break down the attestation and trustworthiness measures into discrete parts.
As to claims 6 and 14, Sood teaches the trustworthiness verification comprises verifying a third trusted certificate, and the third trusted certificate is for verifying whether a trusted platform of the network function service consumer is trusted (confidential computing technology (e.g., Software Guard Extensions (SGX)) is used in the authentication/attestation/trustworthiness schemes using certificates to ensure that both the consumer and provider each have the level of trust needed for interactions) (Sood, at least [0151]).
As to claims 7 and 16, Sood teaches the service response indicates that the request for the service is rejected, and further indicates that a third trusted certificate fails to be verified, a first attestation result fails to be verified, second attestation information fails to be verified, or a third attestation result fails to be verified, the third trusted certificate is for verifying whether a trusted platform of the network function service consumer is trusted, the first attestation result comprises an attestation result indicating that the network function service consumer is attested by a network repository network element to be trusted, the second attestation information is for verifying whether the network function service consumer is trusted, and the third attestation result comprises an attestation result indicating that the network function service consumer has been attested to by trusted (confidential computing technology (e.g., Software Guard Extensions (SGX)) is used in the authentication/attestation/trustworthiness schemes using certificates to ensure that both the consumer and provider each have the level of trust needed for interactions) (Sood, at least [0151]). The limitations require that the service request is rejected. While Sood does not explicitly recite a rejection of a service request, it is inherent that not every request will be blindly granted otherwise there would be no need for authentication/attestation/trustworthiness schemes of Sood.
As to claim 10, the method limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to the rejected method limitations of claims 1 and 2 above and are rejected in similar fashion.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 9 and claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. No. 2024/0205198 to Sood et al. (hereinafter Sood) as applied to claim 1 and claim 10 respectively above, and further in view of US PG Pub. No. 2020/0322423 to Sheth et al. (hereinafter Sheth).
As to claim 8, Sood does not expressly mention a challenge. However, in an analogous art Sheth teaches the service request further comprises the second attestation information and the second attestation information is associated with second challenge data (random number generator generates a nonce (challenge data) that is used in the service request to ensure trust between the parties) (Sheth, at least [0030, 0044, and 0098]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, would have been motivated to implement the mutual trust scheme of Sood with the use of nonces (challenges) of Sheth in order to improve the security of networks as suggested by Sheth (Sheth, [0003]).
As to claim 9 Sood as modified teaches the second challenge data comprises one or more of: a timestamp, a first random number provided by a trusted third party, a second random number generated for verifying whether a trusted platform of the network function service consumer is trusted, a value of an agreed field (random number generator generates a nonce (random number) that is used in the service request to ensure trust between the parties) (Sheth, at least [0030, 0044, and 0098]).
As to claim 17, the method limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar to the rejected method limitations of claims 8 and 9 above and are rejected in similar fashion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S POWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:30.
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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571) 272-7624. 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.
/WILLIAM S POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights