8787Notice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 12/22/25.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1-2,4-6,8-9,11-15, and 17-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the session management function, it is the examiner’s position that the applicant’s specification describe the session management function as the function that control the authentication function and the reference of Patterson teaches a function for performing the authorization steps (col. 2 line 55-col. 3 line 10,col. 3 lines 48-67). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate. See In re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1258, 84 USPQ2d 1929, 1935-1936 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the limitation of network exposure function, Patterson teaches receiving, by the network exposure function, second authorization information from the second authorization device and determining a result of communication authorization performed by the second authorization device on the terminal device (authorization is required for each restricted area, col. 12 lines 32-45,col. 13 lines 52-col. 14 line 9, col. 16 line 62-col. 17 line 36). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate. See In re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1258, 84 USPQ2d 1929, 1935-1936 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patterson US Patent 10,192373.
Regarding claim 1, Patterson teaches an authorization method, comprising:
Receiving, by a session management function, first authorization information from a first authorization device (reader) and determining that communication authorization performed by the first authorization device on a terminal device (RFID tag) succeeds (col. 2 line 55-col. 3 line 10,col. 3 lines 48-67);
sending by a network exposure function, a request message to a second authorization device when the terminal device moves out of an area corresponding to the first authorization device, the request message being used to request the second authorization device perform communication authorization on the terminal device, and the second authorization device is an authorization device corresponding to an area in which the terminal device is located after the terminal device moves out of the area corresponding to the first authorization device (col. 7 lines 10-65, col. 8 lines 7-22); and receiving, by the network exposure function, second authorization information from the second authorization device and determining a result of communication authorization performed by the second authorization device on the terminal device (authorization is required for each restricted area, col. 12 lines 32-45,col. 13 lines 52-col. 14 line 9, col. 16 line 62-col. 17 line 36).
Regarding claim 2, Patterson teaches obtaining by the SMF, first information from the first authorization device, wherein the first information indicates to re-perform communication authorization (authorization is required for each restricted area, moving to another restricted area represent re-performing authorization) on the terminal device (col. 12 lines 32-49, col. 15 lines 34-49); and
the sending by the NEF, the request message to a second authorization device comprises sending the request message to the second authorization device based on the first information (col. 17 lines 6-25, col. 15 lines 13-25).
Regarding claim 3, Patterson teaches information indicating to change an authorization device, information indicating that authorization of the first authorization device is invalid, or identification information of the second authorization device (col. 4 lines 18-31).
Regarding claim 4, Patterson teaches receiving, by the first authorization device, first information indicating that the terminal device moves out of the area corresponding to the first authorization device (col. 7 lines 51-65).
Regarding claim 5, Patterson teaches obtaining, by the first authorization device, location information of the terminal device; and determining, by the first authorization device, based on the location information and the area corresponding to the first authorization device, that the terminal device moves out of the area corresponding to the first authorization device (col. 7 lines 51-65).
Regarding claim 6, Patterson teaches receiving, by the NEF, information that is from the first authorization device and that is about the area corresponding to the first authorization device (interrogation signal is received from the reader, col. 10 lines 38-51).
Regarding claim 7, Patterson teaches obtaining the identification information of the second authorization device. (the zone in which the reader is located is obtained, col. 17 lines 37-54)
Regarding claim 8, Patterson teaches receiving, by the NEF, the identification information of the second authorization device from the terminal device, the first authorization device, or a data management network element (col. 22 lines 7-20).
Regarding claim 9. Patterson teaches an authorization method, comprising:
sending, by a first authorization device, authorization information to a network exposure function,, the authorization information indicating a result of communication authorization performed by the first authorization device on a terminal device (controller transmit information to the server regarding result of authentication, unlocking, col. 12 lines 16-31); and
sending, by the first authorization device, first information to the NEF when the terminal device moves out of an area corresponding to the first authorization device, the first information indicating to re-perform communication authorization on the terminal device (col. 7 lines 51-col. 8 line 29).
Regarding claim 10, Patterson teaches information indicating to change an authorization device, information indicating that authorization of the first authorization device is invalid, or identification information of the second authorization device (col. 4 lines 18-31).
Regarding claim 11, Patterson teaches obtaining, by the NEF, location information of the terminal device and obtaining, by the NEF, the identification information of the second authorization device based on the location information of the terminal device and information about an area corresponding to one or more authorization devices (col. 22 lines 7-20).
Regarding claim 12, Patterson teaches receiving, by the NEF, the identification information of the second authorization device from the terminal device, the first authorization device, or a data management network element (col. 22 lines 7-20).
Regarding claim 13, Patterson teaches determining by the NEF that communication authorization performed on the terminal device succeeds (col. 12 lines 16-31).
Regarding claim 14, Patterson teaches a system comprising:
a session management function (SMF) configured to:
receive first authorization information from a first authorization device (reader)and determine that communication authorization performed by the first authorization device on a terminal device (RFID tag) succeeds (col. 2 line 55-col. 3 line 10,col. 3 lines 48-67); and a network exposure function configured to: send a request message to a second authorization device when the terminal device moves out of an area corresponding to the first authorization device, the request message being used to request the second authorization device perform communication authorization on the terminal device, and the second authorization device is an authorization device corresponding to an area in which the terminal device is located after the terminal device moves out of the area corresponding to the first authorization device (col. 7 lines 10-65, col. 8 lines 7-22); and receive second authorization information from the second authorization device and determine a result of communication authorization performed by the second authorization device on the terminal device (col. 12 lines 32-45,col. 13 lines 52-col. 14 line 9, col. 16 line 62-col. 17 line 36).
Regarding claim 15. Patterson teaches the SMF is further configured to:
obtain first information from the first authorization device, wherein the first information indicates to re-perform communication (authorization is required for each restricted area, moving to another restricted area represent re-performing authorization) on the terminal device (col. 12 lines 32-49, col. 15 lines 34-49) authorization on the terminal device and the NEF is further configure to send a request message to a second authorization device comprises sending the request message to the second authorization device based on the first information (col. 17 lines 6-25, col. 15 lines 13-25).
Regarding claim 16, Patterson teaches information indicating to change an authorization device, information indicating that authorization of the first authorization device is invalid, or identification information of the second authorization device (col. 4 lines 18-31).
Regarding claim 17, Patterson teaches the NEF is further configured to receive first information indicating that the terminal device moves out of the area corresponding to the first authorization device (col. 7 lines 51-65).
Regarding claim 18, Patterson teaches the NEF is further configured to receive the first information indicating that the terminal device moves out of the area corresponding to the authorization device comprises: obtaining, by the first authorization device, location information of the terminal device; and determining, by the first authorization device, based on the location information and the area corresponding to the first authorization device, that the terminal device moves out of the area corresponding to the first authorization device (col. 7 lines 51-65).
Regarding claim 19, Patterson teaches the NEF is further configured to receive information that is from the first authorization device and that is about the area corresponding to the first authorization device (interrogation signal is received from the reader, col. 10 lines 38-51).
Regarding claim 20, Patterson teaches the NEF is further configured, before the sending the request, receiving the identification information of the second authorization device from the terminal device, the first authorization device, or a data management network element (col. 22 lines 7-20).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686