DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/30/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Comparing updated the trust index value” in line 3 should likely read “comparing the updated trust index value”. Appropriate 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, 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baskaran et al. (WO-2023242800-A1) in view of Olsson et al. (WO-2024043812-A1) [hereinafter “Olsson”].
As per claim 1, Baskaran teaches a method for use in a trust index aware repository function (TIARF), the method comprising: receiving, from a function entity service producer (FESP) ([0011], trust index for network producers in the form of network or application functions), a registration request ([0045], network registration acceptance and denial) (Examiner Note: Registration request inherently precedes an acceptance or denial.) including a trust index container (TIC) (Examiner Note: “TIC” is defined in the instant specification as any related information used to identify and perform trust evaluation including identifiers and service types. See Spec. [0133]-[0134].) ([0060], request message can include an NF ID or an AF ID which are used to identify and collect evaluation analytics data and make trustworthiness evaluation for an NF or AF see also [0056]-[0057]).
Baskaran does not explicitly teach identifying a trust management function (TMF) based on the TIC; transmitting, to the TMF, an authorization request indicative of registration of the FESP; receiving, from the TMF, a trust index value associated with the FESP; comparing the trust index value to a first trust index threshold; and transmitting, to the FESP, a registration response indicative of registration of the FESP if the trust index value is greater than the first trust index threshold. Olsson teaches identifying a trust management function (TMF) based on the TIC (Page 11 lines 11-14, Identifying a TMF based on the type of trust measurement algorithm using certain characteristics) also (Page 12 lines 20-22, identity of entities used to determine the trust level calculations) (Examiner Note: As stated above, “TIC” is interpreted to be any related information used to identify and perform a trust evaluation. See Spec. [0133]-[0134].); transmitting, to the TMF, an authorization request (Page 13 para. 13-16, transmitting to the TMF a request for a trust level used for authorization) (Examiner Note: Based on the next step in this claim, authorization is performed at the TMF. The TMF merely returns the trust index. So this “authorization request” is interpreted to be what is explicitly state, i.e. a request for the trust index). indicative of registration of the FESP (Examiner Note: Registration of the FESP is taught by Baskaran at [0045].); receiving, from the TMF, a trust index value associated with the FESP (Page 14 para. 6-8, trust score returned by TMF to network node); comparing the trust index value to a first trust index threshold (Page 17 lines 4-9, determining if trust score exceeds a threshold); and transmitting, to the FESP, a registration response indicative of registration of the FESP if the trust index value is greater than the first trust index threshold (Page 17 lines 10-14, connection request is accepted based on trust score evaluation) (Examiner Note: Registration of the FESP is taught by Baskaran at [0045].).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Baskaran with the teachings of Olsson, identifying a trust management function (TMF) based on the TIC; transmitting, to the TMF, an authorization request indicative of registration of the FESP; receiving, from the TMF, a trust index value associated with the FESP; comparing the trust index value to a first trust index threshold; and transmitting, to the FESP, a registration response indicative of registration of the FESP if the trust index value is greater than the first trust index threshold, to find the correct evaluation method for a trust score based on measurement data and entity identifiers.
As per claim 2, the combination of Baskaran and Olsson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is implemented by one or more of: a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (Baskaran; [0027], various devices transmit and receive wireless communications in a wireless network), a function in a core network (CN) (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature. To expedite prosecution, potential citation provided.) (Baskaran; [0027], function in a core network), a function in an edge network (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature. To expedite prosecution, potential citation provided.) (Baskaran; [0047], edge application discovery function), a function in a radio access network (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature. To expedite prosecution, potential citation provided.) ([0027], functions are in a radio access network), an enhanced network repository function (NRF) in the CN (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature. To expedite prosecution, potential citation provided.) (Baskaran; [0047], analytic network repository function), or a server in a data network (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature. To expedite prosecution, potential citation provided.) (Baskaran; [0095], server in network transmitting software).
As per claim 3, the combination of Baskaran and Olsson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the trust index value is indicative of at least one of: an instantaneous trust index value (Olsson; Page 14 lines 1-5, retrieving trust score from memory storage which is interpreted to be “instantaneous”), or an average trust index value averaged over a trust index window (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature but would likely overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature.).
As per claim 4, the combination of Baskaran and Olsson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the trust index value includes of at least one of: a device trust index (DTI) value associated with the FESP (Olsson; Page 2 para. 4, trust score with NF device), or a user trust index (UTI) value associated with a user of the FESP (Examiner Note: this is an optional feature but could potentially overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature.).
As per claim 5, the combination of Baskaran and Olsson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the trust index value associated with the FESP indicates a level of trustworthiness of the FESP (Baskaran; [0022], assessing the trustworthiness of an NF device).
As per claim 6, the combination of Baskaran and Olsson teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the trust index value is based on an evaluation of one or more trust indicators related to at least one of: security (Baskaran; [0050], trust information related to security state of an NF or AF), privacy (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature but may potentially overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature.), resilience (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature but may potentially overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature.), performance (Baskaran; [0051], information inside the NF that can affect service experience), robustness (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature but may potentially overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature.), scalability (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature but may potentially overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature.), availability (Baskaran; [0051], network state and certificate expiration data – interpreted as availability data), accuracy (Examiner Note: This is an optional feature but may potentially overcome the current rejection if included as a required feature.), reputation (Baskaran; [0051], previously observed behavior), reliability (Baskaran; [0051], data regarding whether the NF is meeting business objectives), or consistency (Baskaran; [0051], configuration violation information).
As per claim 7, the combination of Baskaran and Olsson teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating an updated FESP profile associated with the FESP based on the trust index value (Baskaran; [0049], updating evaluation information for a security policy of an NF which includes the required trust level values with relationships with specific service/consumers see [0024]); and storing the updated FESP profile, wherein the registration response includes the updated FESP profile (Baskaran; [0085], updated polices are stored and returned by the NRF).
As per claim 8, the combination of Baskaran and Olsson teaches the method of claim 7, wherein generating the updated FESP profile includes: marking the FESP as discoverable if the trust index value is greater than a second trust index threshold (Baskaran; [0011], trust data threshold for service discovery); and marking the FESP as non-discoverable if the trust index value is less than the second trust index threshold (See id. Threshold must be met for service discovery.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baskaran and Olsson in view of Goloubew et al. (US PGPUB No. 2025/0117201) [hereinafter “Goloubew”].
As per claim 9, the combination of Baskaran and Olsson teaches the method of claim 8 and deleting an FESP profile associated with the FESP upon deregistration of the FESP (Baskaran; [0086], deleting associated policy, i.e. profile, when an NF is terminated).
The combination of Baskaran and Olsson does not explicitly teach receiving, from the TMF, an updated trust index value associated with the FESP; comparing updated the trust index value to a trust index threshold; de-registering the FESP if the updated trust index value is less than the trust index threshold. Goloubew teaches receiving, from the TMF, an updated trust index value associated with the FESP ([0080], receiving an updated trust score for a code module); comparing updated the trust index value to a trust index threshold ([0080], comparing updated trust score to threshold); de-registering the FESP if the updated trust index value is less than the trust index threshold ([0080], removing the code module from deployment if the trust score does not satisfy the threshold).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Baskaran and Olsson with the teachings of Goloubew, receiving, from the TMF, an updated trust index value associated with the FESP; comparing updated the trust index value to a trust index threshold; de-registering the FESP if the updated trust index value is less than the trust index threshold, to find enforce security policy rules based on determined trust scores and measurement data.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baskaran and Olsson in view of Baskaran et al. (WO-2022096125-A1) [hereinafter “Baskaran ‘125”].
As per claim 10, the combination of Baskaran and Olsson teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Baskaran and Olsson does not explicitly teach on a condition that the TIC includes a TMF identifier (TMFID), identifying the TMF associated with the TMF ID; and selecting the identified TMF. Baskaran teaches on a condition that the TIC (Examiner Note: “TIC” is interpreted to include a message field for including trust related information. See Spec. [0133]-[0134].) includes a TMF identifier (TMFID) ([0083], a DIG-ID is used in network communications to identify and find the trust services enabler function), identifying the TMF associated with the TMF ID ([0083], trust services enabler function is identified); and selecting the identified TMF ([0083], trust services enabler function is selected.).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Baskaran and Olsson with the teachings of Baskaran ‘125, on a condition that the TIC includes a TMF identifier (TMFID), identifying the TMF associated with the TMF ID; and selecting the identified TMF, to locate the correct security policy rules for determining trust scores.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gadhia et al. (KR-20140071418-A), Hoyos et al. (US PGPUB No. 2014/0215575), Sprague et al. (US PGPUB No. 2015/0089568), Miller et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0268315), Efraim et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0378136), Samreen ("Impact of trust management framework on the performance of Path Allegiance Metric based routing protocol in a mobile ad hoc network," 2016 International Conference on Automatic Control and Dynamic Optimization Techniques (ICACDOT), Pune, India, 2016, pp. 477-482, doi: 10.1109/ICACDOT.2016.7877632), Thillo et al. ("Multi-Factor Trust Management in Distributed Storage Networks based on Capacity and Behavior," 2024 9th International Conference on Fog and Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC), Malmö, Sweden, 2024, pp. 228-236, doi: 10.1109/FMEC62297.2024.10710228), Farhoudi et al. ("Service Registration, Indexing, Discovery, and Selection: An Architectural Survey Toward a GenAI-Driven Future," in IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 209680-209722, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3642631) and Murillo ("Towards Trust-Centric Networking: A General Model for Trust Evaluation," 2023 IEEE 22nd (TrustCom), Exeter, United Kingdom, 2023, pp. 704-711, doi: 10.1109/TrustCom60117.2023.00105) all disclose various aspects of trust management and using a trust score to filter requesting users and devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights