DETAILED 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 .
Specification
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Information Disclosure Statement
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant Remarks
Applicant filed remarks made in an Amendment, September 3rd, 2024. Applicant submit the Specification is amended, Claims 16-29 are newly added, and Claims 1-15 are cancelled without prejudice. No new matter is introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guccione et al. (Pub. No. US 20110265153 A1)(hereinafter Guccione) in view of Filart et al. (Pub. No. US 20200053136 A1)(hereinafter Filart).
1-15. (Cancelled)
Regarding claim 16, (New), Guccione teaches a method performed by a first internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network entity in a wireless communication system(Guccione [0002] “The Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) may be used for delivering IP multimedia services to a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU)(i.e. user equipment/UE).”)([0093] “Each of the WTRUs(i.e. user equipment/UE) 602a, 602b, 602c, 602d may be any type of device configured to operate and/or communicate in a wireless environment.”), the method comprising: performing an authorization for a first user equipment (UE) to use third party identity information(Guccione [0006] “A network may receive a communication. The communication may originate from a sending device (e.g., a first WTRU(i.e. user equipment/UE)) and may be intended for delivery to a receiving device (e.g., a second WTRU(i.e. user equipment/UE)). The network may be a sending network associated with the sending device, a third party network, or a receiving network associated with the receiving device. The network may determine authentication information associated with the sending device. The authentication information may include a strong sender identity or state information associated with the sending device. The strong sender identity may be incapable of being manipulated by the a sender of the communication. The strong sender identity may be a network asserted identity. The state information may relate to a health status of the sending device, such as the status of virus protection software or the presence of malware on the sending device. The authentication information may be sent to a receiving entity such as a third party network, receiving network, or receiving device. The receiving entity may evaluate the authentication information to determine if the communication is unsolicited. The receiving entity may remove malware from the sending device.”) ([0043] “To protect against sender impersonation of a WTRU(i.e. user equipment/UE), strong Identity Management (IdM) including strong authentication methods for claimed sender identities may be used across IMS and non-IMS networks for UC protection. IdM methods, such as Generic Bootstrapping Architecture (GBA) (i.e. third party identity information) and OpenID(i.e. third party identity information) may be used, stand-alone or in combination, to protect the IMS communication against sender impersonation.”);
Guccione does not explicitly teach identifying whether a signing process for an intra-domain call is required based on the authorization; and in case that the signing process for the intra-domain call is required, invoking the signing process.
However, Filart teaches identifying whether a signing process for an intra-domain call is required based on the authorization(Filart [0022] “In the illustrated example, the TAS 122 may include the attestation parameter module 102. The attestation parameter module 102 may be configured to verify an identity of an originating device (i.e. a client device) that initiates a call request at the first telecommunications network 106. The call request may take the form of a SIP INVITE message that is generated by an originating device (i.e. client device) within the first telecommunications network 106.”)([0069] “The MSC 150, via an attestation parameter module 102 of the MSC 150, may generate an attestation parameter based at least in part on the verified identity of the originating device 302. By way of example, the attestation parameter may indicate that the originating device is known-permissible, known-impermissible, or unknown.”) ([0070] “In response to generating the attestation parameter, the MSC 150 may generate a SIP INVITE message 306 for delivery to the second SIP network 314 associated with the recipient device 310. In one example, the MSC 150, via the attestation parameter module 102 of the MSC 150, may generate a SIP INVITE message and further modify the identity header of the SIP INVITE message to generate a modified SIP INVITE message 312 that includes the attestation parameter associated with the originating device 302.”) ([0072] “At the second SIP network 314, the R-TAS 316 may detect receipt of the modified SIP INVITE message 312 via the I/S-CSCF 118/120. In doing so, the R-TAS 316 of the second SIP network 314 may parse through the identity header of the modified SIP INVITE message 312 to identify the attestation parameter. Using the attestation parameter, the R-TAS 316, via the attestation parameter module 102 of the R-TAS 316, may verify an identity of the originating device 302, and in doing so, transmit the modified SIP INVITE message 312 to the recipient device 310 in response to the attestation parameter corresponding to a “known-permissible” parameter.”) ([0078] “Moreover, within a STIR/SHAKEN framework that provides an end-to-end architecture for authentication and assertion of a telephone identity by an originating service provider, the IBCF 406 may transmit the modified SIP INVITE message 312 to a Secure Telephone Identity Authentication Service (STI-AS) 408 associated with the first SIP network 304. The STI-AS 408 may verify the identity of the originating device 302 based at least in part on the attestation parameter included with the identity header of the modified SIP INVITE message 312.”); and in case that the signing process for the intra-domain call is required, invoking the signing process([0078] “In response to verifying an identity of the originating device 302, the STI-AS 408 may digitally sign the modified SIP INVITE message using a private key retrieved from a Secure Key Store (SKS) of the SHAKEN framework([0012] the Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN) framework), and further insert an identity header field in the P-Asserted-identity header field of the modified SIP INVITE message 312. In this instance, the modified SIP INVITE message 312, together with the identity header field inserted by the STI-AS 408, may be used to verify an identity of originating device 302 at the peering network 404.”).
Guccione and Filart are analogues in that they are in the same field of Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guccione to incorporate the teachings of Filart about identifying whether a signing process for an intra-domain call is required based on the authorization and in case that the signing process for the intra-domain call is required, invoking the signing process. Doing so would aid in how the attestation parameter module may authenticate an identity of the originating device, and in doing so, insert an attestation parameter into an identity header of a modified SIP INVITE message sent to the recipient device. [0010] Filart
Regarding claim 17, (New), Guccione in view of Filart teaches the method of claim 16, outlined above.
Guccione does not explicitly teach wherein the authorization is performed based on information received from a second IMS entity, and wherein the information includes at least one of provisioning information per IMS public user identity (IMPU) or IMPU information for the first UE.
However, Filart teaches the authorization is performed based on information received from a second IMS entity(Filart [0023] “The attestation parameter module 102 may detect receipt of a SIP INVITE message at the TAS 122 and retrieve an originating device identifier from an identity header of the SIP INVITE message. In doing so, the attestation parameter module 102 may verify an identity of the originating device (i.e. originating device) based at least in part on a comparison of an originating device identifier with data records associated with one or more caller-identity lists. The one or more caller- identity lists may include a list of data records from a Home Subscriber Server(i.e. second IMS entity)(HSS) 124, a list of known-permissible caller identities, and a list of known-impermissible caller identities.”), and wherein the information includes at least one of provisioning information per IMS public user identity (IMPU)(Filart [0023] “The one or more caller-identity lists may include a list of data records from a Home Subscriber Server (HSS) 124, a list of known-permissible caller identities, and a list of known-impermissible caller identities. The list of known-permissible caller identities and the list of known-impermissible caller identities may be included within a data store of the attestation parameter module 102.”) or IMPU information for the first UE.
Guccione and Filart are analogues in that they are in the same field of Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guccione to incorporate the teachings of Filart about the authorization is performed based on information received from a second IMS entity, and wherein the information includes at least one of provisioning information per IMS public user identity (IMPU) or IMPU information for the first UE. Doing so would aid in response to receiving the modified SIP INVITE message with the attestation parameter, the telecommunication network associated with the recipient device may verify the identity of the originating device based on the attestation parameter included within the SIP INVITE message. [0010] Filart
Regarding claim 18, (New), Guccione in view of Filart teaches the method of claim 17, outlined above.
Guccione does not explicitly teach wherein the first IMS network entity includes a serving call session control function (S-CSCF) entity, and wherein the second IMS network entity includes a home subscriber server (HSS) entity.
However, Filart teaches the first IMS network entity includes a serving call session control function (S-CSCF) entity(Filart [0020] “an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) core 112 may reside within the first telecommunications network 106. The IMS core 112 may include application function(s) (AF) 114, such as a Proxy Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) 116, an Interrogating Call Session Control Function (I-CSCF) 118, and a Serving Call Session Control Function (S-CSCF) 120,”), and wherein the second IMS network entity includes a home subscriber server (HSS) entity(Filart [0026] “The MME 128 may access the HSS 124(i.e. second IMS entity) that is configured to authenticate an identity of a client and authorize operation of a corresponding client device on the first telecommunications network 106.”).
Guccione and Filart are analogues in that they are in the same field of Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guccione to incorporate the teachings of Filart about the first IMS network entity includes a serving call session control function (S-CSCF) entity and the second IMS network entity includes a home subscriber server (HSS) entity. Doing so would aid in how the S-CSCF is responsible for processing the location registration of a client device, client authentication, and call routing and processing. The I-CSCF is tasked with selecting an S-CSCF for serving an initial SIP request, particularly when a client device initiating the request does not know which S-CSCF should receive the request. [0020] Filart
Regarding claim 19, (New), Guccione in view of Filart teaches the method of claim 16, outlined above, Guccione further teaches wherein the authorization is performed for establishing a call between the first UE with a second UE(Guccione [0026 ] “A first WTRU (Alice), the receiving device, may specify that connections from trusted domains may be accepted/allowed. A second WTRU (Bob), the sending device, may initiate a call to Alice. Bob's gateway, the sending network, may inform Bob that Bob may use a valid, authenticated identity to call Alice. Bob may contact Bob's gateway and may perform or initiate a procedure in which Bob's identity is authenticated and certified by Bob's gateway. This procedure may include measures to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the exchanged messages.”).
Claim(s) 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guccione et al. (Pub. No. US 20110265153 A1)(hereinafter Guccione) in view of Filart et al. (Pub. No. US 20200053136 A1)(hereinafter Filart) and further in view of STARSINIC et al. (WO 2018232253 A1)(hereinafter STARSINIC).
Regarding claim 20, (New), Guccione in view of Filart fail to explicitly teach a method performed by a second internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network entity in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: transmitting, to a network exposure function (NEF) entity, first information requesting third party identity information; receiving, from the NEF entity, second information associated with authorization for a first user equipment (UE); and transmitting, to a first IMS network entity, via the first UE, the second information.
However, STARSINIC teaches a method performed by a second internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network entity in a wireless communication system(STARSINIC [00173] “an IP gateway (e.g., an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) server) that serves as an interface between the core network 107 and the PSTN 108. In addition, the core network 107 may provide the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c with access to the networks 112,”), the method comprising: transmitting, to a network exposure function (NEF) entity, first information requesting third party identity information(STARSINIC [0004] “A server may determine the identity of a network exposure function (NEF) associated with a user equipment (UE). Standard registration methods may be enhanced to enable the network to provide the UE with information such as an NEF identifier, a UE external identifier(i.e. third party identity information), and a slice identifier. The information may be provided automatically by the server, for example, or upon request from the UE. UE applications and service layers may then use such information, e.g., by providing the NEF identifier or UE identifier, when registering with a server so that the server may identify and communicate with the associated NEF.”); receiving, from the NEF entity, second information associated with authorization for a first user equipment (UE)(STARSINIC [0005] “A data storage function (DSF) may be used to receive UE context information, such as reachability, location, data usage, and available radio access technologies (RATs). A data storage function front end (DSF-FE) may receive and process a request from an NEF to read the context of a UE, e.g., determining whether to authorize the request, and may further provide the UE context. The DSF-FE may reside with the DSF or the NEF, for example. Optionally, request processing may involve communications with a unified data management (UDM) entity or home subscriber service (HSS) for example.”); and transmitting, to a first IMS network entity, via the first UE, the second information(STARSINIC [0055] “For example, in step 1 of Figure 4, the UE sends an Access Network (AN) message to the (R)AN (AN parameters, Registration Request (Registration type, Subscriber Permanent Identifier or Temporary User ID, Security parameters, NSSAI, UE 5GCN Capability, PDU session status, Using NEF flag, SCS/AS identifier)). The message may be updated to include an indication that the UE will be communicating with an SCS/AS. The indication may be used by the network to determine that an NEF identifier should be provided to the UE. The message may also include the identity of the SCS/AS that the UE will be communicating with. This identifier may be used to help determine the best NEF to associate with the UE. Note that this new information could be contained in another field. ”).
Guccione, Filart and STARSINIC are analogues in that they are in the same field of Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) wireless communication and networking protocols. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guccione in views of Filart to incorporate the teachings of STARSINIC about a method performed by a second internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network entity in a wireless communication system, the method comprising transmitting, to a network exposure function (NEF) entity, first information requesting third party identity information receiving, from the NEF entity, second information associated with authorization for a first user equipment (UE) and transmitting, to a first IMS network entity, via the first UE, the second information. Doing so would aid in how the NEF identity may be determined dynamically, e.g., based on a network slice used by the user equipment. [Abstract] STARSINIC
Regarding claim 21, (New), Guccione in view of Filart and further in view of STARSINIC teaches the method of claim 20, outlined above and further recites similar limitations as claim 17 and claim 19, therefore, is rejected based on the same rational as claims 17 and 19.
Regarding claim 22, (New), Guccione in view of Filart and further in view of STARSINIC teaches the method of claim 20, outlined above and further recites similar limitations as claim 18, therefore, is rejected based on the same rational as claim 18.
Regarding claim 23, (New), claim 23 recites similar limitations as claim 16, therefore is rejected based on the same rational as claim 16, moreover, Guccione in view of Filart fail to explicitly teach a first internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network entity in a wireless communication system, the first IMS network entity comprising: a transceiver, and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to:
However, STARSINIC teaches a first internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network entity in a wireless communication system(STARSINIC [00173] “an IP gateway (e.g., an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) server) that serves as an interface between the core network 107 and the PSTN 108. In addition, the core network 107 may provide the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c with access to the networks 112,”), the first IMS network entity comprising: a transceiver(STARSINIC [00110] “a transceiver 34 and a”), and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to(STARSINIC [00112] “As shown in Figure 17, the processor 32 is coupled to its communication circuitry (e.g., transceiver 34 and transmit/receive element 36).”):
Guccione, Filart and STARSINIC are analogues in that they are in the same field of Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) wireless communication and networking protocols. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guccione in views of Filart to incorporate the teachings of STARSINIC about first internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network entity in a wireless communication system, the first IMS network entity comprising: a transceiver, and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to. Doing so would aid in how the 5G UE General Registration Procedure may be enhanced to enable the network to provide the UE with information such as NEF Identifier, UE External Identifier, and Slice Identifier. UE Applications and Service Layers may then use this information when registering with an IoT Server so that the IoT Server may identify and communicate with the NEF. [0031] STARSINIC
Regarding claim 24, (New), Guccione in view of Filart and further in view of STARSINIC teaches the first IMS network entity of claim 23, outlined above and further recites similar limitations as claim 17, therefore, is rejected based on the same rational as claim 17.
Regarding claim 25, (New), Guccione in view of Filart and further in view of STARSINIC teaches the first IMS network entity of claim 24, outlined above and further recites similar limitations as claim 18 and claim 22, therefore, is rejected based on the same rational as claims 18 and 22.
Regarding claim 26, (New), Guccione in view of Filart and further in view of STARSINIC teaches the first IMS network entity of claim 23, outlined above and further recites similar limitations as claim 19 and claim 21, therefore, is rejected based on the same rational as claims 19 and 21.
Regarding claim 27, (New), claim 27 recites similar limitations as claim 20, therefore is rejected based on the same rational as claim 20, moreover, Guccione in view of Filart fail to explicitly teach a second internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network entity in a wireless communication system, the second IMS network entity comprising, and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to:
However, STARSINIC teaches a second internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network entity in a wireless communication system, the second IMS network entity comprising (STARSINIC [00145] “Figure 20 is a block diagram of an example apparatus or device configured for wireless communications in accordance with the embodiments illustrated herein, such as for example, a WTRU 102”): a transceiver([00145] “a transceiver 120,), and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to([00146] “The processor 118 may be coupled to the transceiver 120,”):
Guccione, Filart and STARSINIC are analogues in that they are in the same field of Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) wireless communication and networking protocols. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guccione in views of Filart to incorporate the teachings of STARSINIC about a second internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network entity in a wireless communication system, the second IMS network entity comprising, and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to. Doing so would aid when a UE registers or connects to a network slice, the network may provide the UE with an NEF identifier or a value that could be resolved to an NEF identifier. [0053] STARSINIC
Regarding claim 28, (New), Guccione in view of Filart and further in view of STARSINIC teaches the first IMS network entity of claim 27, outlined above and further recites similar limitations as claim 21, therefore, is rejected based on the same rational as claim 21.
Regarding claim 29, (New), Guccione in view of Filart and further in view of STARSINIC teaches the first IMS network entity of claim 27, outlined above and further recites similar limitations as claim 18, therefore, is rejected based on the same rational as claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Przybysz et al. (Pub. No. US 20130081123 A1) teaches IP Multimedia Subsystem User Identity Handling Method And Apparatus.
LEE (WO 2021086060 A1) teaches enhanced voice mail envelope information using enhanced calling name and caller identity analytic functions.
Betti et al. (US 8520664 B2) teaches multi-vendor IMS architecture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALA BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-6450. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-3867. 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.
/MALA BOYD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/BASSAM A NOAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
