DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action in response to communications received on 6/22/2026. Group 1 comprising claims 1-17 was selected in response to a restriction requirement. Claims 18-20 were cancelled. Claims 1-17 are pending and are examined. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings filed 7/17/2024 are acknowledged.
Restriction
Applicant’s selection of group 1, comprising claims 1-17, with traverse is acknowledged. Applicant’s remarks have been considered, but were found unpersuasive. Accordingly, the restriction is made FINAL.
A search burden exists upon the examiner when applicant drafts the independent claims so that they have different limitations requiring an examiner to search different limitations for each independent claim (i.e. basically requiring the examiner to search for two separate inventions). This has already been a problem in this application as can be seen below since the Examiner ALREADY had to reject each independent claim using a different grounds of rejection, which means separately mapping each group of claims. As further amendments are made, these two independent claims run the risk of going in separate directions that would require separately searching and examining each one. The larger problem caused by this different claim language is that the Examiner may be forced into a situation where one set of claims is allowable while the other is not forcing an application to drag on because there are multiple sets of claims in the application at different statuses (one ready to allow, the other not). This is why we ask that all the independent claims have functionally the same claim language so that they can all be examined and ALLOWED in the same manner and at the same time (as one invention). Applicant is free to place any different claims in dependent claims.
In this case, Claims 1-17 comprises an apparatus of claims 1 and 10, discloses identifying security capabilities of the user equipment in supporting or more non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithms, selecting the non-access stratum combined algorithm and sending a command message to the user equipment indicating the algorithm. Claim 18 from claims 18-20 is missing the limitations disclosing identifying security capabilities of the user equipment and selecting a non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm. In addition, claim 18 contains limitations not found in the other claim group (claims 1-17), such as activating the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm. The fact that each claim group is missing limitations from the other claim group and contains extra limitations not found in the other claim group clearly shows that these two claim groups represent different modes of operation that comprise different claim limitations which would comprise a burden for the examiner to search and comprise allowable subject matter. Furthermore, there is nothing of record to show the claims to be obvious variants. In addition, Claims 1-17, drawn to an apparatus, are classified in H04L9/32 while Claims 18-20, drawn to an apparatus, are classified in H04W 12/041.
Given the different claim limitations and classifications, including these claims would represent a burden for the Examiner. However, when a determination of allowance is made, these claims could be added back in (rejoinder would no longer be appropriate as the claims in question have already been cancelled).
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 8-9 and 17 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.
Claims 8, 9 and 17 are rejected as indefinite because they refer to a limitation that may be selected. Claims 6 and 15 discloses that the algorithm uses AT LEAST ONE of additional authentication data or entropy data, therefore it is possible for the one item to be the additional authentication data. In that case, claims 8, 9 and 17 would carry no weight because the entropy data would be used for the algorithm. The Examiner recommends clarifying in claims 8 and 17 “when the [insert algorithm] uses the extra entropy data” to clarify that those claims are occurring in a scenario where the extra entropy data is the one used. In claim 9, since it discloses identifying BOTH the authentication data and the entropy data, the Examiner recommends clarifying “when the [insert algorithm] uses both the additional authentication data and the extra entropy data”. Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2022/0201488) in view of Lin (US 20190082367).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses the limitations substantially as follows:
An apparatus of a network, the apparatus comprising:
an access and mobility management function operatively coupled to user equipment to negotiate security mechanisms (Liu, paras. [0044], [0070]: security management processing module of UE for security algorithms);
the access and mobility management function comprising:
at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the access and mobility management function at least to perform:
identifying security capabilities of the user equipment in supporting one or more non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithms (Liu, paras. [0037], [0070], Figs. 6A-6B: identifying security capabilities such as supported encryption and integrity algorithms that are combined together (i.e. combined) in a non-access stratum (NAS) security context);
selecting a non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm from the one or more non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithms to protect non-access stratum signaling (Liu, paras. [0037], [0057], [0070], Figs. 6A-6B: selecting NAS encryption and integrity algorithms to be combined in a command from the supported algorithms); and
sending a non-access stratum security mode command message to the user equipment indicating the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Liu, paras. [0070], Figs. 6A-6B: sending a secure mode command to the UE containing the selected NAS integrity and encryption algorithms combined in the command).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 1, however in the same field of endeavor Lin discloses the remaining limitations of claim 1 as follows:
combined integrity and encryption algorithms (paras. [0060]: a NAS security algorithm is generated including both a NAS encryption key and a NAS integrity protection key)
Liu is combinable with Lin because they are both in the same field of endeavor of negotiating NAS integrity and encryption keys and because Lin explicitly says that it is directed to a system comprising both NAS and AS key negotiation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to integrate Lin’s method of generating a single NAS security key including both the NAS encryption key and the NAS integrity key with the system of Liu in order to protect NAS signaling exchanges between the terminal and the network.
Regarding claim 2, Liu and Lin teach the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1.
Liu and Lin teach the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
wherein: the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Lin, paras. [0060]: a NAS security algorithm is generated including both a NAS encryption key and a NAS integrity protection key) supports multiple operating modes (Liu, paras. [0041], [0070]-[0072]: encryption and integrity algorithms to be combined in a NAS command support NULL encryption and integrity algorithms (i.e. multiple operating modes));
the selecting comprises selecting an operating mode from the multiple operating modes for the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Lin, paras. [0060]: a NAS security algorithm is generated including both a NAS encryption key and a NAS integrity protection key) selected to protect the radio resource control signaling (Liu, paras. [0041], [0070]-[0072]: selecting a NULL or non-NULL algorithm for the encryption and integrity algorithms to be combined in the NAS command); and
the sending comprises sending the non-access stratum security mode command message to the user equipment indicating the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Lin, paras. [0060]: a NAS security algorithm is generated including both a NAS encryption key and a NAS integrity protection key) and the operating mode for the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Liu, paras. [0041], [0070]-[0072]: sending the NAS security mode command message to the UE indicating the combination of the integrity and encryption algorithm and any encryption and integrity algorithms that are NULL (i.e. operating mode for the NAS algorithms).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Liu and Lin teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 1-2.
Liu teaches the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
wherein: the multiple operating modes comprise: an integrity and encryption mode; an integrity mode; an encryption mode; and NULL encryption and NULL integrity mode (Liu, paras. [0041]: null encryption algorithm and null integrity algorithm).
Regarding claim 4, Liu and Lin teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 1-3.
Liu and Lin teach the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
wherein: the integrity mode comprises at least ONE of:
an ignore encryption and integrity mode, where the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm is configured to apply integrity protection and encryption to the non-access stratum signaling using a non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption key, but ciphered data is ignored; and
NULL encryption and integrity mode, where the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Lin, paras. [0060]: a NAS security algorithm is generated including both a NAS encryption key and a NAS integrity protection key) is configured to apply integrity protection and NULL encryption to the non-access stratum signaling using the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption key (Liu, paras. [0041]: NULL encryption and integrity mode in which NULL encryption is selected while NULL is not selected for the integrity algorithm).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Liu and Lin teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 1-4.
Liu and Lin teach the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
the non-access stratum security mode command message is extended to indicate the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Lin, paras. [0060]: a NAS security algorithm is generated including both a NAS encryption key and a NAS integrity protection key) and the operating mode selected from the multiple operating modes for the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Liu, paras. [0041], [0070]-[0071]: the NAS secure mode command includes the selected NAS encryption and integrity algorithms combined together in the command and any encryption /integrity algorithms that are NULL (i.e. operating modes selected from the operating nodes for the NAS).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Liu and Lin teach the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1.
Liu and Lin teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
the non-access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Lin, paras. [0060]: a NAS security algorithm is generated including both a NAS encryption key and a NAS integrity protection key) uses at least ONE of additional authenticated data and extra entropy data as input parameters to generate a non-access stratum message authentication code (Liu, paras. [0070]-[0072]: the security context for the combination of the integrity and encryption keys uses a 5G key set identifier and mobile identity (i.e. additional authenticated data)) (see also Lin, paras. [0060]-[0061]: the combination of the encryption key and integrity key for NAS is derived from root key K.sub.ASME (i.e. additional authentication data).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Liu and Lin teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 1 and 6.
Liu teaches the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
the additional authentication data comprises one of: a 5G temporary mobile subscriber identity, TMSI, of the user equipment; a truncated 5G-S-TMSI; or network slice selection assistance information (Liu, paras. [0070]-[0072]: security context for the encryption and integrity algorithms uses various parameters such as a mobile identifier and registration type (i.e. mobile subscriber identity)).
Regarding claim 8, Liu and Lin teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 1 and 6-7.
Lin teaches the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
wherein: the extra entropy data comprises a random number generated by the access and mobility management function (Lin, paras. [0060]-[0061], [0068]-[0069]: the combination of the encryption key and integrity key for NAS is derived from root key K.sub.ASME (i.e. additional authentication data), where the root key may use a RAN node identifier that may be replaced with a configured value such as a random number).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to integrate Lin’s method using a random number to generate the integrity and encryption algorithms with the system of Liu in order to increase the security of the system by making the values making up the integrity and encryption algorithms harder to predict.
Regarding claim 9, Liu and Lin teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 1 and 6-8.
Liu and Lin teach the limitations substantially of claim 9 as follows:
wherein: the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the access and mobility management function to perform:
identifying the additional authenticated data (Liu, paras. [0070]-[0072]: the security context for the combination of the integrity and encryption keys uses a 5G key set identifier and mobile identity (i.e. additional authenticated data)); and
identifying the extra entropy data (Lin, paras. [0060]-[0061], [0068]-[0069]: the combination of the encryption key and integrity key for NAS is derived from root key K.sub.ASME (i.e. additional authentication data), where the root key may use a RAN node identifier that may be replaced with a configured value such as a random number);
wherein the sending comprises sending the non-access stratum security mode command message to the user equipment containing at least one of the additional authenticated data and the extra entropy data (Lin, paras. [0060]-[0061], [0068]-[0069]: sending the NAS security algorithm to the terminal/UE, where the NAS security algorithm comprises the root key K.sub.ASME (i.e. additional authentication data) generated from a random number (i.e. extra entropy data).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 8 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20190082367) in view of Liu (US 2022/0201488)
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches the limitations substantially as follows:
An apparatus of a network, the apparatus comprising:
a radio access network node operatively coupled to user equipment to negotiate security mechanisms (Lin, paras. [0053]-[0054]: radio access network node (eNB, RNC, NB, BSC, BTS, HNB, BBU or AP) is connected to the user terminal for negotiating security algorithms);
the radio access network node comprising:
at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the radio access network node at least to perform:
identifying security capabilities of the user equipment in supporting one or more access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithms (Lin, paras. [0064]: negotiating an AS security algorithm from mutual security capabilities of the user terminal for an evolved AS Security key that includes an AS integrity algorithm and encryption algorithm);
selecting an access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm from the one or more access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithms to protect radio resource control signaling (Lin, paras. [0064]: generating the AS security key from the obtained evolved integrity algorithm and the evolved encryption algorithm); and
sending an access stratum security mode command message to the user equipment indicating the access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Lin, paras. [0132]: sending an AS security mode command to the terminal carrying a combination of a integrity algorithm and ciphering algorithm).
Lin does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 10, however in the same field of endeavor Liu discloses the remaining limitations of claim 10 as follows:
identifying security capabilities in support of one or more integrity and encryption algorithms (paras. [0037]: when a user device first attaches to a network, the user device indicates its security capabilities such as supported encryption algorithms and supported integrity algorithms to the network);
selecting an integrity and encryption algorithm (para. [0037]: Upon receiving the device security capabilities, the network then selects the algorithms to be used based on both the supported security algorithms indicated by the user device and the network);
Lin and Liu are combinable because they are both from the same field of endeavor of negotiating NAS integrity and encryption keys and because Lin explicitly says that it is directed to a system comprising both NAS and AS key negotiation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to integrate Liu’s method of receiving identified algorithms that are supported by the user equipment when the user device first attaches and selecting an algorithm from those algorithms as the negotiated algorithm with the system of Lin because this is a well-understood step in the negotiation process in 3GPP and doing so ensures that the algorithms selected for negotiation are supported by both entities in the negotiation process.
Regarding claim 11, Lin and Liu teach the limitations of the apparatus of claim 10.
Lin and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
the access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Lin, paras. [0064]: an evolved AS Security key that includes an AS integrity algorithm and encryption algorithm) supports multiple operating modes (Liu, paras. [0041], [0070]-[0072]: encryption and integrity algorithms support NULL encryption and integrity algorithms (i.e. multiple operating modes));
the selecting comprises selecting an operating mode from the multiple operating modes (Liu, paras. [0041], [0070]-[0072]: selecting a NULL or non-NULL algorithm (i.e. operating mode) for the encryption and integrity algorithms) for the access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm selected to protect the radio resource control signaling (Lin, paras. [0064]: an evolved AS Security key that includes an AS integrity algorithm and encryption algorithm for protecting radio controls); and
the sending comprises sending the access stratum security mode command message to the user equipment indicating the access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Lin, paras. [0132]: sending an AS security mode command to the terminal carrying a combination of an integrity algorithm and ciphering/encryption algorithm) and the operating mode for the access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (para. [0041]: the integrity and encryption algorithms indicate whether they are NULL (i.e. the included algorithms indicate the operating mode)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to integrate Lin’s method of supporting and using NULL algorithms with the system of Lin in order to “enable [[a]] UE that cannot be authenticated by the network due to various reasons to establish emergency sessions” (Liu, para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Lin and Liu teach the limitations of claims 10-11.
Liu teaches the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
wherein: the multiple operating modes comprise: an integrity and encryption mode; an integrity mode; an encryption mode; and NULL encryption and NULL integrity mode (Liu, paras. [0041]: null encryption algorithm and null integrity algorithm).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 11 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Lin and Liu teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 10-12.
Lin and Liu teach the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
the integrity mode comprises at least ONE of:
an ignore encryption and integrity mode, where the access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm is configured to apply integrity protection and encryption, but ciphered data is ignored; and
NULL encryption and integrity mode, where the access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Lin, paras. [0132]: sending an AS security mode command to the terminal carrying a combination of an integrity algorithm and ciphering/encryption algorithm) is configured to apply integrity protection and NULL encryption (Liu, paras. [0041]: NULL encryption and integrity mode in which NULL encryption is selected while NULL is not selected for the integrity algorithm).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 11 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Lin and Liu teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 10-13.
Lin and Liu teaches the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
a security algorithm configuration information element of the access stratum security mode command message is extended to indicate the access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (see also Lin, paras. [0060]-[0061], [0132]: AS security mode command includes the combination of the encryption key and ciphering key (i.e. combined integrity and encryption algorithm)) and the operating mode selected from the multiple operating modes for the access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm (Liu, paras. [0041], [0070]-[0071]: encryption /integrity algorithms may be NULL (i.e. indicating the operating mode)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 11 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Lin and Liu teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 10-14.
Lin teaches the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
wherein: the access stratum combined integrity and encryption algorithm uses at least one of additional authenticated data and extra entropy data as input parameters to generate a message authentication code (see also Lin, paras. [0064]: the combination of the encryption key and integrity key is derived from root key K.sub.ASME (i.e. additional authentication data).
Regarding claim 16, Lin and Liu teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 10-15.
Lin teaches the limitations of claim 16 as follows:
wherein: the additional authentication data comprises at least ONE of: a radio network temporary identifier; and a physical cell identifier (paras. [0064], [0068]-[0069]: the root key is an initial/temporary root key that identifies the radio network and also may include a random number).
Regarding claim 17, Lin and Liu teach the limitations of the apparatus of claims 10-16.
Lin teaches the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
wherein: the extra entropy data comprises a random number generated by the radio access network node (Lin, paras. [0060]-[0061], [0068]-[0069]: the combination of the encryption key and integrity key for NAS is derived from root key K.sub.ASME (i.e. additional authentication data), where the root key may use a RAN node identifier that may be replaced with a configured value such as a random number).
Prior art considered but not relied upon includes:
1) Wang (US 20250254524) a 5G system has two security layers. In other words, at a NAS and an access stratum (AS), security mode commands are separately activated and security functions such as encryption and integrity protection are enabled. After the terminal and the network authenticate each other, the terminal and the network negotiate a security algorithm and a key used for encryption and integrity protection of RRC signaling, NAS signaling, and user data in a subsequent communication process. After negotiation of a NAS security algorithm is completed, encryption and integrity protection are performed on all NAS messages between the AMF and the UE. During AS security mode command interaction, the gNodeB and UE negotiate a key algorithm and a key for AS encryption and integrity protection, and enable encryption and integrity protection for AS RRC messages. (para. [0117]).
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, claims 1-17 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON S LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4583. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARON S LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights