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 .
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 3, 10, and 24 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 3 and 24 recites “the service rejection information” and the Independent Claims (claim 1 and 22) recites “service rejection information”. It is unclear if Claim 3 and 24 are referring to “service rejection information” in the respective Independent Claim or not. Clarification is needed.
Claim 10 recites “a method authentication code”. This causes confusion as there is no support for such a limitation in the specification. Should it be “a message authentication code”. Clarification is needed.
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, 7, 9, 21, 22, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (EP3993462 A1) in view of Je (US 20230422106)
Regarding Claim 1, 21, and 22, Takakura teaches A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: generate a first message indicating service rejection information associated with a service rejection (Par.91: lines 1-8 and Fig.5, S-NSSAI#1 is included in a Rejected NSSAI, i.e. network slice(s) requested by the UE but not supported by the visited network ); Par.91, UDM21 receives); and receive, based at least in part on the Par.91:lines 5-8 and Fig.5, UDM 21 may inform the UE 1 of SOR information (Slice-aware PLMN selection information (list of PLMNs)) indicating availability of slice services in S-NSSAI#1 Here, to indicate the availability of slice services in S-NSSAI#1, the SOR information may include information of a PLMN that supports S-NSSAI#1 (i.e., can provide a network slice equivalent to the network slice of the HPLMN identified by S-NSSAI#1). Note: list of PLMNs, i.e. preferred visited network list). Takakura further teaches that the indication (i.e. transmitted message) is encrypted by the UE using an encryption key (Page 18: Claim 7). However, Takakura does not expressly teach generate a key to protect the first message; generate a secured first message using the key and the first message; transmit the secured first message.
Je teaches the well-known concept of key generation by a UE to protect a first message (Par.190 and Par.271-272, UE generates a key); generate a secured first message using the key and the first message (Par.190, UE may protect a message by encrypting/decrypting or digitally signing the message transmitted through a key); transmit the secured first message (Par.190, UE may protect a message…the message transmitted). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify Takakura’s system to include the generation of a key and protecting (encryption or signing) the service rejection message by the UE, as taught by Je, in order to enhance the security, integrity, and authenticity of messages exchanged between the UE and the network. As wireless networks are vulnerable to eavesdropping and tampering attacks, it is a well-established design principle to use keys to protect sensitive signaling messages. Using PKI or session keys to encrypt or sign such messages ensures that only authorized parties can read or modify the message, thus preventing man-in-the-middle or spoofing attacks. Therefore, incorporating the message protection techniques of Je into Takakura’s system would have been obvious to ensure secure, reliable, and authenticated communication, especially in scenarios where service rejection and roaming information could be targeted by attackers.
Regarding Claim 7 and 28, Je further teaches the key is generated using input parameters comprising one or more of a UE identifier, a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI), a home network identifier, a freshness parameter, a nonce, a random number, a counter, a slice service reporting code, a slice service reporting keyword, a confidentiality code, or an integrity code (Par.272, random value).
Regarding Claim 9 and 30, Takakura teaches the preferred visited network list is prioritized based at least in part on one or more of visited network service capabilities or slice serving capabilities (Par.15-Par.18, “…capable of providing an equivalent network slice…”).
Claim 2, 10, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (EP3993462 A1) and Je (US 20230422106) in further view of Seaborn (US 20220217000)
Regarding Claim 2 and 23, While JE discloses the use of the session key for message authentication. Takukura and Je does not expressly teach the UE use the key to generate a hashed message authentication code of the first message to generate at least a portion of the secured first message.
Seaborn teaches using a key to generate a hashed message authentication code of the first message to generate at least a portion of the secured first message (Par.80, “utilizes an attribute-based encryption user key as a secret cryptographic key to generate a key-hash message authentication code digital signature over a set of header fields of a protected resource access request made by a resource user requesting access to a particular protected resource in the set of protected resources”). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the combined invention of Takakura and Je with the teachings of Seaborn. Takakura and JE teaches that it is standard for a UE to generate a session key using PKI-based/EAP-TLS authentication and to use that key for message authentication in wireless networks (Je, Par.270-272) and Seaborn teaches that, in the context of session-based secure communications, the session key is used to generate a hashed message authentication code (HMAC) over messages for integrity/authentication. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the HMAC-based message authentication of Cheng in the key-based authentication Takakura and JE to provide robust, standard message integrity and authentication for the communications.
Regarding Claim 10, Takukura and Je does not expressly teach however Seaborn teaches message/data is protected by a method (/message) authentication code and is based at least in part on a second key (Par.61, 68, 70, user key). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the combined invention of Takakura and Je with the teachings of Seaborn to provide secure network communications where only authenticated users can access or modify protected resources, and to prevent tampering or spoofing attacks.
Claims 3-4 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (EP3993462 A1) and Je (US 20230422106) in further view of Jiwan (WO 2021138526).
Regarding Claim 3 and 24, Takakura teaches that a message can be received from the network component that the UE transmits to including rejected slice information (Par.91), however Takakura and Je do not expressly teach the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to receive a second message indicating the service rejection for a service associated with a network slice and UE subscription data, the second message including comprising the service rejection information.
Jiwan teaches cause the UE to receive a second message indicating the service rejection for a service associated with a network slice and UE subscription data (Par.354-356, unavailability of S-NSSAI is subscription data), the second message including comprising the service rejection information (Par.354-356, rejection cause). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the invention of Takakura and Je with the further teachings of Jiwan. Takakura and Je do not disclose the UE receiving a second message with service rejection information specifically linked to UE subscription data (e.g., slice unavailability due to subscription constraints). Jiwan fills this gap by teaching that the network sends the UE a second message (e.g., Registration Accept with rejected S-NSSAIs and rejection cause codes) where the rejection is explicitly based on UE subscription data (such as slice mapping, availability in region, or subscription limits). Combining Jiwan’s approach with Takakura and Je would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it provides a complete and robust signaling mechanism for informing the UE not just about slice rejection, but the underlying subscription-based reasons for rejection. This enhances the user experience and network policy enforcement by making clear to the UE why a service is unavailable.
Regarding Claim 4 and 25, rejection of Claim 3 and 24 is relied upon where Jiwan further teaches wherein the service rejection information comprises one or more of a reference identifier, sender information, a UE identifier, a network function identifier, a visited network identifier, subscribed slice identification information, subscribed service identification information, failure cause information (Par.355), a timestamp, a key identifier, a freshness parameter, or a slice service reporting code.
Claims 5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (EP3993462 A1) and Je (US 20230422106) in further view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding Claim 5 and 26, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is a well-known concept in the art for a UE to transmit a key identifier for the key with the secured first message. The key identifier (KSI or similar) tells the network which key the UE is referring to, ensuring both sides use the same cryptographic material.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Takakura and Je with the subject matter of the OFFICIAL NOTICE such than an enhanced system is provided which allows the network to quickly locate and use the correct key for decrypting/authenticating the message. It avoids ambiguity and prevents the need for the network to try multiple keys, which would be inefficient and error-prone.
Claims 6, 8, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (EP3993462 A1) and Je (US 20230422106) in further view of Wang (WO 2022/156933).
Regarding Claim 6 and 27, while Takakura and Je does not teach, Wang teaches the key comprises e at least one of an authentication server function (AUSF) key, a slice service reporting key, or an authentication and key management for applications (AKMA) key (Page 18:lines 6-15). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to modify Takakura and Je with the teachings of Wang such that an enhanced system is provided where both the UE and the network independently compute the same A-KID, ensuring both sides can reference the same key material without needing to exchange secret values. This is because it enables standards-compliant, decentralized key management, supports privacy-preserving routing, and allows both the UE and network to independently derive and reference the same key material for secure application sessions thereby improving interoperability, robustness, and overall system scalability.
Regarding Claim 8 and 29, while Takakura and Je does not teach, Wang teaches the key comprises one or more of a slice reporting root key, an integrity key, or a confidentiality key (Page 18:lines 6-15: KAKMA key or KAF). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to modify Takakura and Je with the teachings of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to enhance the scalability, standards compliance, and security of key management in Takakura and Je, would be motivated to combine WANG’s teaching of UE-side KAKMA generation as this would provide decentralized, stateless, and privacy-preserving key management, aligns with 3GPP AKMA standards, and supports efficient, secure application-layer session establishment—thereby improving the overall robustness and flexibility of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY LEO KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7867. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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.
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.
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights