DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 9/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Amendments to Fig. 3, Spec, and Abstract are acknowledged and approved.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-26 have been newly added.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 20-26 remain pending.
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, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US20210321249A1), hereafter He, in view of Takakura et al. (US20200128460A1), hereafter Takakura.
Regarding claim 1, 8, and 15,
He (Title: Restricted Access and Use Control for UE with Reduced Capabilities) discloses a device (Fig. 9-10, device 902, 1002; paragraphs 146-157) comprising one or more processors (Fig. 9-10, processor 904,1004/circuitry 922-928, 1022-1028) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 9-10, Memory 912, 1012) storing a plurality of processor-executable instructions (Fig. 9-10, code 914-920, 1014-1020) to perform a method (i.e. Fig. 5B, 6, 7).
He discloses to receive a UE capability policy associated with a wireless network, wherein the UE capability policy (i.e. subscription) includes criteria indicating a particular set of UE capabilities (paragraph 54-65; Fig. 7, step 704; paragraph 126); receive a request for a UE to access the wireless network (Fig. 7, step 702; paragraph 125); determine that the UE capability policy is applicable to the request (Fig. 7, step 706; paragraph 127); determine, based on determining that the UE capability policy is applicable to the request, UE capability information associated with the UE (Fig. 7, step 708; paragraph 77-78, 87-93, 106-120, 128-129; verifying UEs capability indication against its subscription data).
He further shows to compare the UE capability information, associated with the UE, to the criteria included in the UE capability policy to determine whether the UE implements the particular set of UE capabilities (Fig. 7, step 710; paragraph 128-129; compare UE capabilities to subscription data) and, based on the comparing, determining that the UE does not implement the particular set of UE capabilities (Fig. 7, step 712; paragraphs 81, 101, 110-111, 130-142; denying/rejecting access when determining that the UE does not implement the particular set of UE capabilities).
He does not expressly disclose identifying a proxy function that implements the particular set of UE capabilities and has been granted access to the wireless network and redirecting the UE to the proxy function to relay communications.
Takakura discloses analogous art of controlling network access (Title; paragraph 125, 149; UE network capability including supported security algorithms) including identifying a proxy function (Fig. 4, P-CSCF; paragraph 16, 18, 21; N3IWF; paragraph 87-91) that implements the particular set of UE capabilities and has been granted access to the wireless network; and redirecting the UE to the proxy function to relay communications between the UE and the wireless network (paragraph 23-26; deny/reject/redirection message to P-CSCF for making emergency call based on indicated UE capabilities; N3IWF functions for relaying UE comm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify He by identifying a proxy function that implements the particular set of UE capabilities and has been granted access to the wireless network; and redirecting the UE to the proxy function to relay communications between the UE and the wireless network, as shown by Takakura, thereby ensuring emergency call service in an all-IP architecture.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16,
The combination of He and Takakura discloses determining the UE capability information includes outputting a request, to a NF of the wireless network, for UE capability information associated with the UE and receiving a response from the NF that includes the UE capability information (Fig. 7, step 708; paragraph 77-78, 87-93, 106-120, 128-129; verifying UEs capability indication against its subscription data; Fig. 7, step 710-712; paragraph 128-134; compare UE capabilities to subscription data; paragraph 56; subscription data used by NFs to perform policy control).
Regarding claims 21 and 24,
The combination of He and Takakura discloses to refrain from facilitating establishment of a communication session between the UE and a user plane gateway of the wireless network based on determining that the UE does not implement the particular set of UE capabilities (He: Fig. 7, step 712; paragraphs 81, 101, 110-111, 130-142; denying/rejecting access when determining that the UE does not implement the particular set of UE capabilities).
Regarding claims 22 and 25,
The combination of He and Takakura discloses granting, to a requesting UE, access to the wireless network when determining that the UE implements the particular set of UE capabilities (paragraph 55, 65, 78, 80, 101, 188; restricting allowed network access and use for UE with reduced capabilities).
Regarding claims 23 and 26,
The combination of He and Takakura discloses a UE request to access the network, determining that the UE implements a subset of the particular set of UE capabilities, and granting, to the UE, restricted access to the wireless network based on determining that the UE implements the subset of the particular set of UE capabilities (He: Fig. 7, step 710; paragraph 128-129; compare UE capabilities to subscription data; paragraph 55, 65, 78, 80, 101, 188; restricting allowed network access and use for UE with reduced capabilities).
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He and Takakura, as in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US20180220364A1), hereafter Li.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 17,
The combination of He and Takakura does not expressly disclose the particular set of UE capabilities includes cryptography configuration information that specifies at least one of: a particular cryptography algorithm, or a quantity of bits of a key used by the particular cryptography algorithm to perform encryption techniques.
Li discloses analogous art of network access for a UE (Title: Access Method, Device, and System for UE) based on UE capability information (Fig. 3; paragraph) where the particular set of UE capabilities includes cryptography configuration information that specifies at least one of: a particular cryptography algorithm, or a quantity of bits of a key used by the particular cryptography algorithm to perform encryption techniques (Fig. 4-1 thru 4-2; paragraph 207-258, specifically 216-217 and Table 1; obtaining UE capability and matching cryptographic algorithm of network access to the capability of the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify He and Takakura by providing the particular set of UE capabilities includes cryptography configuration information that specifies at least one of: a particular cryptography algorithm, or a quantity of bits of a key used by the particular cryptography algorithm to perform encryption techniques, as shown by Li, thereby reducing authentication delay for network access.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He and Takakura, as in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US20180262979A1), hereafter Wang.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20,
He generally discloses network slice selection function (paragraph 35) but the combination of He and Takakura fails to expressly show determining that a request to access a particular network slice of a plurality of network slices and the UE capability policy are both associated with the particular network slice.
Wang discloses analogous art (Title) including determining that a request to access a particular network slice of a plurality of network slices and the UE capability policy are both associated with the particular network slice (paragraph 108; obtaining and matching the service list of the UE and service list of the network slice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify He and Takakura by determining that a request to access a particular network slice of a plurality of network slices and the UE capability policy are both associated with the particular network slice, as shown by Wang, so that a process of selecting and accessing a service network when the network dynamically changes can be simplified with reduced signaling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims, as amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on Takakura reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the Remarks on pg. 24 of the Amendment, Applicant states the previous rejections are moot and does not address the combination of He and Takakura used to previously reject claims 5, 12, and 18 because claims 5, 12, and 18 have been cancelled.
Examiner notes that although claims 5, 12, and 18 have been cancelled, the present amendment incorporates at least portions of the limitations of those cancelled claims into independent claims 1, 8, and 15 but does not address how these amendments overcome the previous combination of He and Takakura used to rejection previous claims 5, 12, and 18. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15 based on the combination of He and Takakura are properly maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Niu et al. (US20140050103A1); Title: Mobile Proxy for Cloud Radio Access; see also Fig. 1-3 and paragraphs 24-30 regarding UE capabilities and redirecting the UE device by mobile proxy based on the UE capability.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights