DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 10 and 16 are objected to because they contain numbers between parenthesis that refer to particular figures.
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.
Claims 8, 12-13 and 20 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.
Claim 8 recites the terms “the received data” which lack antecedent basis.
Claims 12-13 recite the terms “the shared secret” which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 20 recites the terms “the received security parameter from the movable network entity” which lack antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellermann et al. “Novel Architecture for Cellular IoT in Future Non-Terrestrial Networks: Store and Forward Adaptations for Enabling Discontinuous Feeder Link Operation”, IEEEAcess, June 29,2022, hereinafter Keller in view of Morchon (US Pub.No. 2025/0280295).
Re Claim 1. Keller discloses an apparatus, comprising at least one processor (210), at least one memory (220) including computer program code, and at least one interface (230) configured for communication with at least another apparatus, wherein in a scenario, in which a movable network entity (200) has an established link to a core-network entity (400) but no established link to a terminal entity (100) (i.e. the service link becomes inactive. On the other hand, satellite ↔ ground station visibility is given now so that the feeder link becomes active) [Keller, p.11, col.2, step 2, Fig. 1], and in which the movable network entity moves into a coverage area of the terminal entity allowing establishment of a link between the movable network entity and the terminal entity (i.e. The UE is in coverage again and initiates the Initial Attach procedure again. It sends the NAS Attach Request message (message (3) in Fig. 8) to the MME satellite onboard MME, which in turn sends an AIR with the UE’s IMSI to the onboard Authentication Proxy module. This time, the required authentication vectors are present to produce a successful AIA ) [Keller, p.12, col.1, step 4], the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to perform: obtaining, at the movable network entity, of at least a security parameter of the terminal entity (i.e. Authentication vectors and subscriber information are now transmitted to the satellite. The satellite’s authentication proxy module saves this data in its store and forward database. It now has the required information present to complete initial attach procedures for pending UE) [Keller, p.11, col.2, section 3], establishing of a connection between the terminal entity and the movable network entity based on the security parameter of the terminal entity in response to receiving a connection setup request (i.e. The UE is in coverage again and initiates the Initial Attach procedure again. It sends the NAS Attach Request message (message (3) in Fig. 8) to the MME satellite onboard MME, which in turn sends an AIR with the UE’s IMSI to the onboard Authentication Proxy module. This time, the required authentication vectors are present to produce a successful AIA ) [Keller, p.12, col.1, section 4]
Keller does not explicitly disclose whereas Morchon does: comprising the security parameter of the terminal entity (i.e. the UE security_capabilities received by the AMF in the Initial UE Message NAS-PDU: Registration Request) [Morchon, para.0135].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Keller with Morchon because it can be adapted to facilitate improved security in Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) [Morchon, para.0381].
Keller further discloses: and identifying of the terminal entity based on a [comparison] of the security parameter of the terminal entity received in the establishing of the connection and the obtained security parameter of the terminal entity (i.e. In order to perform authentication and security mode messaging, the MME needs authentication vectors generated by the HSS. For this purpose, it sends an Authentication Information Request (AIR) to the HSS. In response, the HSS returns an Authentication Information Answer (AIA )that contains the authentication vectors. These vectors are used to validate the UE’s identity and to establish temporary NAS keys for encrypted signaling) [Keller, p.5, col.1, section 1].
Keller in view of Morchon does not explicitly disclose based on a comparison…however it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that validating the UE’s identity, as taught by Keller, implies comparing the authentication information received in the attach request (i.e. security parameter) with the authentication information received from the HSS because it yields the expected result of verifying the UE’s identity based on information received from a trusted source.
Re Claim 10. This claim recites features similar to those in claim 1 corresponding to a core network entity, therefore it is rejected in a similar manner.
Re Claim 16. This claim recites features similar to those in claim 1 corresponding to a terminal entity, therefore it is rejected in a similar manner.
Re Claim 2. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, Keller does not explicitly disclose whereas Morchon does: wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform obtaining of a shared key (i.e. UE may also include its id in the response in order for gNB to identify UE's public key from the ledger and use it similarly (i.e., along with its private key to derive the shared symmetric key K) and derive the necessary keys (e.g., HMAC, and/or MIC, and/or encryption keys) to verify the UE's response validity) [Morchon, para.0215].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 3. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, Morchon further discloses: wherein the obtained shared key was generated using a key derivation function based on at least a shared secret (i.e. UE may also include its id in the response in order for gNB to identify UE's public key from the ledger and use it similarly (i.e., along with its private key to derive the shared symmetric key K) and derive the necessary keys (e.g., HMAC, and/or MIC, and/or encryption keys) to verify the UE's response validity……………….(e.g., by means of a key derivation function)) [Morchon, para.0215].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 4. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, Morchon further discloses: wherein the obtained shared key was generated using the key derivation function based on a counter value, the value of which being dependent on a number of connection establishments between the terminal entity and the or another movable network entity, and the shared secret (i.e. K can be used to derive one or multiple keys for lower layers, e.g., by applying a KDF. Additional input parameters to the key derivation function might include the layer, the communication direction (e.g., uplink), a time counter (e.g., UTC based or based on a communication counter such as the SFN)) [Morchon, para.0324].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 5. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, Morchon further discloses: wherein the identifying of the terminal entity is further based on the shared key (i.e. derive the necessary keys (e.g., HMAC, and/or MIC, and/or encryption keys) to verify the UE's response validity, and subsequently its provenance) [Morchon, para.0215].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 6. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform receiving, at the movable network entity, of data from the terminal entity, and decrypting of the received data using the obtained shared key (i.e. c. UE uses the public key of step 3 to encrypt, e.g., the 5G-S-TMSI-part1 or I-RNTI with establishment or resume cause (“priority access”) and sends this to the gNB. d. gNB uses the private key in Step 3 to decrypt the message……………………. step 3 is replaced by sharing a symmetric-key………… the UE uses the key or the one-time pad to encrypt the message and send the encrypted message in Step 5c) [Morchon, para.0730-0731, 0738-0742].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 7. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, Keller in view of Morchon further discloses: wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform buffering of the decrypted data and forwarding of the decrypted data to an application via the link to the core-network entity (400) upon said link to the core-network entity (400) being established (i.e. the UE can transition into ECM-Connected state and send MO traffic to the satellite. MO (Mobile Originated) packets are buffered in the onboard User Data Proxy component until the satellite passes over a ground station. With feeder link availability, the MO packets can be sent to the User Data Proxy ground component, where they are directly forwarded to the corresponding Packet Data Network (PDN), or to the home network) [Keller, p.8, col.2, section B], [Morchon, as in claim 6 above teaches decrypted data].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 8. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, Keller does not explicitly disclose whereas Morchon does: wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform obtaining of a plurality of non-allocated terminal security parameters (i.e. the base station (or a NF in the V/HPLMN) may send a challenge, e.g., including a nonce, in e.g., RRC Connection Setup to UE………………… the challenge may include requesting for additional parameters, e.g., the fingerprint of (a part) of the firmware. A trusted entity in the device (under test) may be in charge of computing such fingerprint and signature to make sure that the device is attested properly) [Morchon, para.0204-0205], and sending of one terminal security parameter out of the plurality of non-allocated terminal security parameters to the terminal entity (i.e. the base station (or a NF in the V/HPLMN) may send a challenge, e.g., including a nonce, in e.g., RRC Connection Setup to UE………………… the challenge may include requesting for additional parameters, e.g., the fingerprint of (a part) of the firmware. A trusted entity in the device (under test) may be in charge of computing such fingerprint and signature to make sure that the device is attested properly) [Morchon, para.0204-0205] upon decryption of the received data using the shared key (i.e. generate a shared secret (e.g., Diffie-Hellman based as described in other embodiments (e.g, Embodiment 12) and use that key, or a key derived from it, to integrity/confidentiality protect those parameters, e.g., next to the SUPI. These encrypted and/or integrity protected are then sent by the UE to the core network for decryption and integrity verification allowing for the secure retrieval of those parameters) [Morchon, para.0261], and optionally encrypting of the terminal security parameter sent to the terminal using the shared key [Note: this limitation is not required by the claim].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 9. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, Keller does not explicitly disclose whereas Morchon does: wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform sending of a certificate of the movable network entity from the movable network entity (i.e. a certificate chain of trust verification and/or verification may refer to and/or include, but is not limited to, the process of verifying the validity period of an entity's (e.g., base station) certificate) [Monrchon, para.0226].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Morchon does not explicitly disclose: to the terminal entity in response to the connection between the terminal entity and the movable network entity being established however Keller teaches performing mutual authentication between the terminal entity and the movable network entity in response to establishing a connection (i.e. The MME and UE can now proceed to mutually authenticate,) [Keller, p.12, col.1, section 4], therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Keller-Morchon to include sending the certificate of the movable network entity of Morchon to the terminal in response to the connection because transmitting the certificate to the terminal yields the expected result of enabling the mutual authentication taught by Keller.
Re Claim 11. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform obtaining of a shared key, and providing of the shared key to the movable network entity (i.e. a UE might randomly generate a key K and encrypt it with the long-term public key of the home network. The home network might then decrypt it, and share it, or a key derived from it with the radio access network (RAN), e.g., a base station handling the access of the UE) [Morchon, para.0276].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 12. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform generating of the shared key generated using a key derivation function based on at least the shared secret (i.e. the core network (103) might obtain a shared key SK derived from a master secret MS shared between UE (100) and the home core network ) [Morchon, para.0286].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 13. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform incrementing of a counter value in response to a connection between the movable network entity and the terminal entity being established, and generating of the shared key using the key derivation function based on the counter value and the shared secret (i.e. K can be used to derive one or multiple keys for lower layers, e.g., by applying a KDF. Additional input parameters to the key derivation function might include the layer, the communication direction (e.g., uplink), a time counter (e.g., UTC based or based on a communication counter such as the SFN)) [Morchon, para.0324, Note: a communication counter implicitly teaches incrementing the counter in response to the connection].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 14. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform receiving of data (i.e. it sends an Authentication Information Request (AIR) to the HSS. In response, the HSS returns an Authentication Information Answer (AIA )that contains the authentication vectors. These vectors are used to validate the UE’s identity and to establish temporary NAS keys for encrypted signaling) [Keller, p.5, col.1, section 1].
Re Claim 15. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform providing a plurality of non-allocated terminal security parameters to the movable network entity (i.e. the managing entity (AF) may receive said NCR capabilities from the NCR during the authentication/ authorization process. The managing entity (AF) might also retrieve them from, e.g., a database, once the NCR is authenticated. Upon authentication and authorization, the managing entity may share one or more of those NCR capabilities with the gNB) [Morchon, para.0689].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 17. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, Morchon further discloses: wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform obtaining a shared secret, and generating a shared key using a key derivation function based on at least the shared secret (i.e. If the UE has locally-stored records from the ledger containing the information related to the access device (e.g., gNB), it can use the gNB's public key along and its private key to derive a shared symmetric key K. K may then be used to derive (e.g., by means of a key derivation function) other keys (e.g., HMAC key, MIC key, encryption key) that UE may use to protect and/or sign the challenge response) [Morchon, para.0215].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 18. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform incrementing a counter value in response to a connection between the movable network entity and the terminal entity being established, and wherein the generating of the shared key using the key derivation function is based on the counter value and the shared secret (i.e. K can be used to derive one or multiple keys for lower layers, e.g., by applying a KDF. Additional input parameters to the key derivation function might include the layer, the communication direction (e.g., uplink), a time counter (e.g., UTC based or based on a communication counter such as the SFN)) [Morchon, para.0324, Note: a communication counter implicitly teaches incrementing the counter in response to the connection].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 19. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform encrypting data using the shared key, and sending the encrypted data to the movable network entity (i.e. c. UE uses the public key of step 3 to encrypt, e.g., the 5G-S-TMSI-part1 or I-RNTI with establishment or resume cause (“priority access”) and sends this to the gNB. d. gNB uses the private key in Step 3 to decrypt the message……………………. step 3 is replaced by sharing a symmetric-key………… the UE uses the key or the one-time pad to encrypt the message and send the encrypted message in Step 5c) [Morchon, para.0730-0731, 0738-0742].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Re Claim 20. Keller in view of Morchon discloses the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code and with the at least one interface is configured to cause the apparatus to further perform receiving of a further security parameter and buffering the received security parameter from the movable network entity (i.e. the base station (or a NF in the V/HPLMN) may send a challenge, e.g., including a nonce, in e.g., RRC Connection Setup to UE………………… the challenge may include requesting for additional parameters, e.g., the fingerprint of (a part) of the firmware. A trusted entity in the device (under test) may be in charge of computing such fingerprint and signature to make sure that the device is attested properly) [Morchon, para.0204-0205].
The same motivation to modify with Morchon, as in claim 1, applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOURA ZOUBAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-7285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at 571-272-3811. 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.
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434