DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/23/2024 and 2/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have 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 7 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 7 and 17 recite the term “the other node”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term and also there are a couple possibilities which could be “the other node” (the FESC or the TMF). This renders the claim indefinite. Examiner suggests explicitly reciting which component is being referred to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Karapantelakis et al. (WO-2025017375-A1) [hereinafter “Karapantelakis”].
As per claim 1, Karapantelakis teaches a function entity service producer (FESP) comprising: a processor; and a transceiver, wherein the processor and the transceiver are configured to: receive a subscription request message from a function entity service consumer (FESC), wherein the subscription request message comprises at least an indication of services the FESC is requesting (Abstract, request by a consumer for access to a service of a specified type provided by a provider) and an indication of a condition that the service function is to apply when determining whether to send a service notification pursuant to the subscription ([0033] and [0038], requests includes an indication of an NFType used to look up and retrieve collective reports to determine whether to allow or block a request) see also ([0047], service discovery request includes conditions set by the NFC), receive a trust index of the FESC from a trust management function (TMF), wherein the trust index is at least one of a trust index of the FESC or a trust index of a user of the FESC ([0038], receiving a trust/risk score along with a confidence score associated with the network function consumer), determine to authenticate the subscription request based on the trust index being greater than a threshold ([0034], allowing a request based on value of risk score), receive an updated trust index of the FESC from the TMF based at least in part on the condition being met ([0072], updating trust and confidence score which is dependent on the NFType see [0033] scores are calculated and updated based on the NFType), and send the service notification to the FESC based at least in part on the updated trust index of the FESC being greater than the threshold ([0073], denial of the request if the updated score is less than a threshold – which conversely means allowing the request if the score is greater than the threshold).
As per claim 2, Karapantelakis teaches the FESP of claim 1, wherein the trust index is a metric that indicates a level of trustworthiness and is based on a trust evaluation of one or more trust indicators ([0036], using many indicators of trust including exploits, updates, and past behaviors of an NF).
As per claim 3, Karapantelakis teaches the FESP of claim 2, wherein the trust indicators comprise factors related to at least one of security, privacy, resilience, performance, robustness, scalability, reputation, availability, accuracy, reliability, or consistency ([0036], exploits and updates will generally relate to “security, privacy, resilience, performance, robustness, availability, accuracy, reliability and consistency” while past behaviors relate to reputation) (Examiner Note: “scalability” is not a required feature but a potential citation may be [0060] which discusses having a risk assessment that span a large number of NF’s efficiently).
As per claim 4, Karapantelakis teaches the FESP of claim 1, wherein the processor and the transceiver are further configured to determine to not authenticate the subscription request based on the trust index being less than the threshold and to send a response message to the FESC indicating the subscription request cannot be accepted ([0065], authenticating or not authenticating based on risk and confidence score) see also ([0034], Examiner makes an official notice that including a response for a denial of a request is well known in the art.).
As per claim 5, Karapantelakis teaches the FESP of claim 1, wherein the processor and the transceiver are further configured to send a subscription update or cancellation request message to the FESC to adjust or cancel the subscription based on the updated trust index of the FESC being less than the threshold ([0073], denial of the request if the updated score is less than a threshold – which conversely means allowing the request if the score is greater than the threshold).
As per claim 6, Karapantelakis teaches the FESP of claim 1, wherein the processor and the transceiver are further configured to subscribe to the TMF to receive the trust index and updated trust indices of the FESC over a duration ([0068]-[0069], monitoring behavior over a period, updating profile database with new information/score and syncing with certain NF’s).
As per claim 7, Karapantelakis teaches the FESP of claim 1, wherein the processor and the transceiver are further configured to send a request for the updated trust index, to the other node, in response to the condition being met ([0045]-[0046], NFC request includes NFC information which indicate a number of conditions including a risk score which within specific boundaries which triggers a request to monitor the NFC further for an ”updated” trustworthiness score can be reached).
As per claim 8, Karapantelakis teaches the FESP of claim 1, wherein the processor and the transceiver are further configured to send a response to the FESC indicating successful subscription based on the transceiver and the processor determining to authenticate the subscription request ([0034], authenticating NFC with score and allowing the request) (Examiner takes official notice that a response after allowing a request is considered general practice and interpreted as well known in the art).
As per claim 9, Karapantelakis teaches the FESP of claim 1, wherein the processor and the transceiver are further configured to store the updated trust index of the FESC to a least one permissioned distributed ledger (PDL) ([0069], updated scores are stored in a database which can be implemented as a distributed ledger see [0052]).
As per claim 10, Karapantelakis teaches the FESP of claim 9, wherein the processor and the transceiver are further configured to retrieve trust indices from the at least one PDL ([0052] and [0069], risk scores are retrieved from the database as well).
As per claim 11, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 7. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 8. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 10. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 21, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 22, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 23, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 24, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 25, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cho et al. (WO-2025174278-A1), Li et al. (WO-2025199318-A1), Ramachandran et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0177467), Courbon et al. (US PGPUB No. 2017/0155662), Cooper et al. (US PGPUB No. 2013/0268994), Gonen (US PGPUB No. 2010/0114744), Veith et al. ("Use-Case Analysis regarding Trust Relations in Dynamic Networks," Mobile Communication - Technologies and Applications; 27th ITG-Symposium, Osnabrueck, Germany, 2023, pp. 152-157), Kantola ("Trust Networking for Beyond 5G and 6G," 2020 2nd 6G Wireless Summit (6G SUMMIT), Levi, Finland, 2020, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/6GSUMMIT49458.2020.9083917), Wang et al. ("IP network-based trust management system," 2011 Eighth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), Shanghai, 2011, pp. 2286-2289, doi: 10.1109/FSKD.2011.6019936) and Bhattarai et al. ("Trust Score-Based Zero Trust Architecture for Advanced Metering Infrastructure Security," NAECON 2024 - IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, Dayton, OH, USA, 2024, pp. 334-339, doi: 10.1109/NAECON61878.2024.10670642) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including using trust scores to authenticate interactions between network function types.
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.
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 on 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 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 March 10, 2026