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 .
Clarity of the Record-Contingent Limitations
MPEP sections 2111.04(II) and 2143.03 address the handling of contingent limitations in the claims. Specifically, as it pertains to method claims the MPEP states: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.” Note that contingency may also affect the potential allowability of a claim limitation is it would not be required to be performed per the MPEP guidance.
Clarity of the Record-Claim Interpretation
MPEP section 2181 addresses claim limitations that invoked a 112(f) means plus function interpretation. The claims have been evaluated, and specifically the limitations around a fist and second network entity. Based on the review of the claimed limitations and the MPEP and associated three-prong test, the Examiner’s position is that the first and second network entity limitations would be understood to one of skill in the art to have structure and further not interpreted as intended to invoke a 112(f) means plus function interpretation of the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 34-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nokia (NPL “KI#2, Sol #23: Updates to clarify on interfacing with USS/UTM”, see IDS).
Re claim 34, Nokia discloses a method performed by a first network entity, comprising:
receiving, from a second network entity (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9 – communication between AMF/SMF/UPF/UDM/USS/UTM), a message indicating at least one kind of a secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 8-9), wherein one of the at least one kind of a secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16) is a service based interface (SBI) -based secondary authentication/authorization (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16).
Re claim 44, Nokia discloses a method performed by a second network entity, comprising: transmitting, to a first network entity (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9 – communication between AMF/SMF/UPF/UDM/USS/UTM), a message indicating at least one kind of a secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 8-9), wherein one of the at least one kind of a secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16) is service based interface (SBI) -based secondary authentication/authorization (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16).
Re claim 35, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 34, and further discloses wherein the at least one kind of the secondary authentication/authorization method further comprises: another kind of a data network- authentication, authorization and accounting (DN-AAA) based secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-17 – USS/UTM(DN-AAA) communication).
Re claim 45, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 44, and further wherein the at least one kind of the secondary authentication/authorization method further comprises another kind of a data network- authentication, authorization and accounting (DN-AAA) -based secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-17 – USS/UTM(DN-AAA) communication).
Re claim 36, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 34, further comprising: checking the message to decide whether the secondary authentication/authorization is required (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11) and/or which kind of secondary authentication/authorization method is to be used (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16).
Re claim 46, Nokia discloses the method according claim 44, and further wherein the first network entity checks the message to decide whether the secondary authentication/authorization is required (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11) and/or which kind of secondary authentication/authorization method is to be used (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16).
Re claim 37, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 36, further comprising: requesting a third network entity to perform the secondary authentication/authorization (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16 – ‘Data from UDM’ - ‘AMF selections SMF’), based on the kind of secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16 – ‘Data from UDM’ - ‘AMF selections SMF’).
Re claim 47, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 46, and further discloses wherein the first network entity requests a third network entity to perform the secondary authentication/authorization (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16 – ‘Data from UDM’ - ‘AMF selections SMF’), based on the kind of secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16 – ‘Data from UDM’ - ‘AMF selections SMF’).
Re claim 38, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 37, and further wherein the message further includes access information for the first network entity to access the third network entity (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-12 – ‘service based interface…directly between SMF’ – ‘SMF subscription data’).
Re claim 48, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 47, and further wherein the message further includes access information for the first network entity to access the third network entity (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-12 – ‘service based interface…directly between SMF’ – ‘SMF subscription data’).
Re claim 39, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 34, and further wherein the message includes a first indication for the SBI-based secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16) and/or a second indication for a data network- authentication, authorization and accounting (DN-AAA) based secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-17 – USS/UTM(DN-AAA) communication).
Re claim 49, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 44, and further wherein the message includes a first indication for an SBI-based secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16) and/or a second indication for a data network- authentication, authorization and accounting (DN-AAA) -based secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-17 – USS/UTM(DN-AAA) communication).
Re claim 40, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 39, and further wherein the message indicates the DN-AAA based secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-17 – USS/UTM(DN-AAA) communication); wherein a third network entity is a DN-AAA server (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-17 – USS/UTM(DN-AAA)); and wherein the message includes access information for the first network entity to access the DN-AAA server (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-17 – USS/UTM(DN-AAA) communication and authorization).
Re claim 50, Nokia further disclose the method of claim 49, and further wherein the message indicates the DN-AAA based secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-17 – USS/UTM(DN-AAA) communication); wherein a third network entity is a DN-AAA server (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-17 – USS/UTM(DN-AAA)); and wherein the message includes access information for the first network entity to access the DN-AAA server (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 9-17 – USS/UTM(DN-AAA) communication and authorization).
Re claim 41, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 40, and further wherein the access information includes at least one of: an address of the DN-AAA server (Section 1, 2; Description at page 3-5 for Note 1; Step 9); an additional address of the DN-AAA server; or a domain name of the DN-AAA server.
Re claim 51, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 50, and further wherein the access information includes at least one of: an address of the DN-AAA server (Section 1, 2; Description at page 3-5 for Note 1; Step 9); an additional address of the DN-AAA server; or a domain name of the DN-AAA server.
Re claim 42, Nokia discloses the method of claim 41, and further wherein the first network entity accesses the third network entity directly (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9 – communication between AMF/SMF and UPF/UDM and USS/UTM) or via a user plane function (UPF) (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9 – communication between AMF/SMF and UPF/UDM and USS/UTM).
Re claim 52, Nokia discloses the method according to claim 50, and further wherein the first network entity accesses the third network entity directly (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9 – communication between AMF/SMF and UPF/UDM and USS/UTM) or via a user plane function (UPF) (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9 – communication between AMF/SMF and UPF/UDM and USS/UTM).
Re claim 43, Nokia discloses the method of claim 34, and further wherein the first network entity comprises a session management function (SMF) (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9 – communication between AMF/SMF and UPF/UDM and USS/UTM); wherein the second network entity comprises a unified data management (UDM) (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9 – communication between AMF/SMF and UPF/UDM and USS/UTM); and wherein the message is a response to a request for session management data (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 step 9; Description at page 3-5 for step 9).
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.
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.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia (NPL “KI#2, Sol #23: Updates to clarify on interfacing with USS/UTM”, see IDS) in view of Baek (US Pub 20200267223).
Re claim 53, Nokia discloses an apparatus for a first network entity in a communication network, comprising:
whereby the apparatus for the first network entity is operative for: receiving, from a second network entity (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9 – communication between AMF/SMF/UPF/UDM/USS/UTM), a message indicating at least one kind of a secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 8-9), wherein one of the at least one kind of a secondary authentication/authorization method (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16) is a service based interface (SBI) -based secondary authentication/authorization (Sections 1 and 2; Fig 6.23.3.1-1 steps 6, 8-12, 15; Description at page 3-5 for steps 6, 9-11, Note 4 prior to 16); however, Nokia fails to explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus embodiment comprises a processor; and a memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processor.
This design is however disclosed by Baek. Baek discloses wherein the apparatus embodiment comprises a processor (Fig 8; Paragraphs 108-112); and a memory (Fig 8; Paragraphs 108-112), the memory containing instructions executable by the processor (Fig 8; Paragraphs 108-112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Nokia in order to incorporate the embodiment components of Baek based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance by using common and understood components with expected general functionality would be obvious to allow integration of the design into actual communication environments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights