DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 1/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, Applicant addresses the rejection under 35 USC 112. As noted in the below rejection, and the previous rejection, the rejections were made as the claims fail to “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the subject matter. Specifically, the claims have an indeterminant scope. For example, none of claims 1-5 and 7 require that any steps be performed, as in embodiments where no re-authentication request is received, the method is never performed. Applicant should amend the instant claim to ensure that the triggering conditions that each step relies on actually occurs as part of the method (where a method, as a whole, only needs to be executed once to teach the instant claim, as a whole).
On page 10, Applicant addresses the reliance of paragraphs [0040] to [0046] as admitted prior art. It is noted that in the argument, Applicant never actually states that the paragraphs are not considered to be prior art, does not address how the paragraphs refer to actual prior art publications, and reference figures that are now labeled as --Prior Art--. If Applicant believes that the corresponding paragraphs were invented by the inventors, Applicant should directly state this. Otherwise, Applicant should specifically state how the paragraphs do not properly characterize the cited prior art publications from the paragraphs, and that the cited publications do not actually disclose the subject matter that the specification presents that they do.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues the application of Vedantham to AAPA to teach the second and third steps, such as in claim 1. First, it was previously noted, and is still noted, that the instant claim does not actually require the performance of the steps, as the instant claim makes no requirement of the receipt of a re-authentication request and further makes no requirement of a receipt of any failure indication. Thus, the arguments cannot be deemed persuasive due to the conditional language utilized by Applicant repeatedly in the instant claims.
Second, 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). In this case, Vedantham teaches the use of different access types to try to perform a transmission, while AAPA teaches the re-authentication process. Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). When combined, the combination of AAPA with Vedantham, as presented in the previous rejection and the rejection provided below, would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the retransmission process of Vedantham with the known re-authentication process, where Applicant’s arguments appear to rely on the lack of all of the details of the instant claim steps (that are not even required) in a singular reference.
Accordingly, the instant claims stand rejected for the reasons provided below.
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, 7-12, and 14 are 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.
With regard to claim 1, the instant claim provides three steps, with each step reciting “in response that…” (which appears to be similar to “in response to”), which would have the step triggered by the action that it is in response to (e.g. selecting is triggered by receiving a re-authentication request). This language provides no requirement that the triggering action is actually ever performed. Claim 1, for example, presents at least four distinct embodiments (as a note, more embodiments would be provided, as none of the steps are actually dependent on the performance of any other step, but the below limited listing is based on sequentially testing each condition, and assuming that each step is performed responsive to the previous step, where without such an assumption, there would potentially be eight distinct embodiments):
no re-authentication request is ever received, thus having no actual steps performed;
a re-authentication request is received, but no failure indication is ever received, thus having only the selecting step performed;
a re-authentication request is received and a failure indication in a selected one access type is received, thus having only the selecting and the retrying steps performed; and
a re-authentication request is received and a failure indication is received in both access types, thus having all three steps performed.
Accordingly, it is unclear what claim 1 actually requires, as the claim does not ever require that any triggering action occurs, rendering the instant claim indefinite. As previously recommended, Applicant should clearly set forth that the triggering conditions actually occur (e.g. presenting steps that perform the triggering condition, such as receiving a re-authentication request to ensure that the first step is performed). Claims 2-5 and 7 do not remedy the issue with regard to claim 1, and is rejected for the same. Claims 8-12 and 14 presents a processor that essentially performs the method of claims 1-5 and 7, and are also rejected for the same.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art, as evidenced by the instant specification paragraphs [0040] to [0046] and corresponding Figures 1A and 1B in view of US 2015/0110130 (Vedantham).
With regard to claim 1, AAPA discloses a method for performing authentication for a multi-access packet data unit (MA-PDU) session by a session management function + packet data network (PDN) gateway control plane function (SMF+PGW-C) in a wireless communication network (Specification: Paragraphs [0040] to [0046] and Figures 1A to 1B. As noted in the rejection under 35 USC 112, the instant claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, would include embodiments where no re-authentication request is ever received, where in AAPA, if no re-authentication request is ever received, the instant claim would be disclosed as a whole. Further, AAPA, as presented below, also presents the selecting step, and thus would also disclose the instant claim, as a whole, in a case where no failure indications are received (i.e. the re-authentication is successful).), the method comprising:
selecting one of a first access type and a second access type in response that the SMF+PGW-C receives a re-authentication request from a data network - authentication, authorization, and accounting (DN-AAA) server (Specification: Paragraphs [0040] to [0046] and Figures 1A to 1B. As an access type is used, one is inherently selected. The instant claim fails to provide for how the selection occurs, that both are actually considered for selection. For instance, if a system always uses a specific access type, the system always selects that access type from a first access type and a second access type.).
Again, AAPA would reasonably provide a case where the authentication is reachable for whichever access type is selected, and thus would reasonably disclose the instant claim, as a whole (as the open-ended language would allow for at least a third case no failure indicator is received). However, in the interest of expedited prosecution, the two optional cases are addressed, where AAPA fails to specifically recite, but Vedantham teaches retrying a procedure for the re-authentication of the MA-PDU session for another access type among the first access type and the second access type in response that the SMF+PGW-C receives a failure indication for the re-authentication that UE is not reachable in the selected one access type (Vedantham: Paragraph [0033]. Vedantham provides a process where if a packet transmitted on one network fails (the destination is unreachable), the transmission is tried via a secondary network.); and informing the DN-AAA server that the UE is not reachable for the secondary re-authentication in response that the SMF+PGW-C receives the failure indication that the UE is not reachable in both the first access type and the second access type, respectively (AAPA: Paragraph [0045] and Vedantham: Paragraph [0033]. In the combination, a number of retries using the different connections would be made, with the determination of unreachability only being made after it is determined that the UE is not reachable with either connection.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to attempt a retransmission of the packet over a different network when the transmission fails (destination is unreachable) over the chosen accesses (5GC or EPC) to give the authentication process the best chance of success through an automated process without involving a user, where the destination would only be determined to be unreachable if both options for access failed.
With regard to claim 2, AAPA in view of Vedantham teaches that the first access type is one of an evolved packet core (EPC) and a fifth generation core (5GC), and the second access type is another one of the EPC and the 5GC (AAPA: Paragraph [0045]).
With regard to claim 3, AAPA in view of Vedantham teaches that the first access type is one of a third generation partnership project (3GPP) access and a non-3GPP access, and the second access type is another one of the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access (AAPA: Paragraph [0045]).
With regard to claim 4, AAPA in view of Vedantham teaches wherein in if the one access type selected by the SMF+PGW-C is non-3GPP connected to 5GC, the failure indication is received from an access mobility function (AMF) (AAPA: Paragraph [0045]. As a note, the instant claim does not actually require any actual functionality to be performed when the one access type is not a non-3GPP connected to 5GC.).
With regard to claim 5, AAPA in view of Vedantham teaches wherein if the one access type selected by SMF+PGW-C is 3GPP connected to EPC, the failure indication is received from a mobility management entity (MME) (AAPA: Paragraph [0045]. As a note, the instant claim does not actually require any functionality to be performed when the one access type is not 3GPP connected to EPC.).
With regard to claim 7, AAPA in view of Vedantham teaches releasing the MA-PDU session if that the SMF+PGW-C receives the failure indication that the UE is not reachable in both the first access type and the second access type, respectively (AAPA: Paragraph [0045]. As presented with regard to claim 1, the instant claim would not have any requirement if such a failure indication is never received.).
With regard to claims 8-12 and 14, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-5 and 7, and are rejected for similar reasons.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights