DETAILED ACTION
713.09 Interviews Between Final Rejection and Notice of Appeal [R-08.2017]
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. See MPEP § 714.13.
Interviews may be held after the expiration of the shortened statutory period and prior to the maximum permitted statutory period of 6 months without an extension of time. See MPEP § 706.07(f).
A second or further interview after a final rejection may be held if the examiner is convinced that it will expedite the issues for appeal or disposal of the application.
For interviews after notice of appeal, see MPEP § 1204.03.
Interview time will be revised to a limit of 1 hour per new application or RCE (utility)/CPA (design), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. When more than one interview is needed in an application supervisors will have the flexibility to approve additional time and ensure that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the claims amendment in view of the Remarks filed 05/15/2026, the claim objection have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1; there appears to be a missing “and” at the end of line 16.
Claims 2 – 6 are dependent claims and thus also objected.
Regarding claim 6; the limitations “the other entity”, and “the encrypting entity” lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: encryption/decryption module adapted to encrypt…to decrypt, a reception/transmission module adapted to send…to receive, and a processing module adapted to compare…in claims 7 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1 – 4 and 6 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over prior art of record, NAKARMI et al., (US 2019/0246275 A1) (hereinafter “NAKARMI”) in view of the prior art of record, Wang et al., (US 2021/0274345 A1) (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, NAKARMI discloses; a method to enable lawful interception of activities of a user equipment UE [i.e., the operation 108 may be an operation related to a lawful interception of the UE (page 4, para 0040), (page 2, para 0022), (see figure 1), (page 5, para 0047)], while the UE is in a roaming situation with a visited Public Land Mobile Network PLMN [i.e., the UE 102 is being served by a servicing PLMN 112 other than the home PLMN 114 (see figure 1), (page 2, para 0032 – page 3, para 0035) Note; this architecture in figure 1 clearly depicts roaming situation] using a parameter [i.e., secret identifier 110 (see figure 1)] known by both UE and visited PLMN [i.e., the secret identifier is a secret that is shared (emphasis added) between the UE and network node of the servicing PLMN 112 (see ref. 202 of figure 2), (page 2, para 0033), (see figure 1) i.e., the secret identifier 110 may comprise a Global Unique Temporary Identity (GUTI) (page 3, para 0038], said visited PLMN having been provided, for lawful interception purposes [i.e., the operation 108 may be an operation related to a lawful interception of the UE (page 4, para 0040), (page 2, para 0022), (see figure 1)], said method comprising the steps of, respectively, for the UE or for the visited PLMN:
sending the parameter known by both UE and visited PLMN encrypted [i.e., encrypt the secret identifier 110 (page 5, para 0047 and 0048)] with, respectively, the key or the provided key [i.e., encrypting the secret identifier with the first symmetric encryption key (page 5, para 0047 and 0048)], to, respectively, the visited PLMN, and for, respectively, the visited PLMN, which received the encrypted parameter [i.e., send this public identifier, encrypted with the public key, to the network node 106 of the servicing PLMN 112 (page 5, para 0047 and 0048), (see figure 1)]:
decrypting the encrypted parameter with, respectively, the provided key or the key [i.e., decrypts the public identifier with the second symmetric encryption key (page 5, para 0049) i.e., the second symmetric key is the same as the first symmetric key (page 5, para 0048)], and
comparing the decrypted parameter with the parameter as known by, respectively, the visited PLMN which received the encrypted parameter [i.e., compares the decrypted public identifier with the secret identifier (page 5, para 0047 and para 0049)],
authorizing only if the comparison shows that both parameters are the same [i.e., this comparison may result in a determination by the network node 106 that the encrypted secret identifier and the public identifier match. Such a match may indicate that the verification has succeeded (page 5, para 0047)].
NAKARMI does disclose;
with an application function AF associated to a bootstrapping technology, said activities using an AF key, visited PLMN having been provided, for lawful interception purposes, with a said provided application function key, encrypted the AF key or the provided AF key and decrypting with the provided AF key or the AF key.
However, Wang discloses;
a method to enable interception of activities of a user equipment UE with an application function AF associated to a bootstrapping technology [i.e., authentication and key management for application (AKMA) as bootstrapping security between a UE and an application function (AF) (page 1, para 0003 – 0004) i.e., AKMA is described as an evolution of Generic Bootstrapping Architecture (GBA) (page 1, para 0004) i.e., AKMA Anchor Function (AAnF) described as analogous to the Bootstrapping Server Function (BSF) in GBA (page 1, para 0006)], said activities using an AF key [i.e., KAF: The AF specific key…application key (page 1, para 0011) i.e., secure communication is established between the UE and the application based on the K_AF (page 1, para 0013)], visited PLMN having been provided, with a said provided application function key [i.e., the AF requests the AF-specific key from the AAnf, providing a K_AKMA identifier and AF identifier…the AAnF derives K_AF from K_AKMA and provides it to the AF…the AF then forwards key-related parameters to the UE, enabling secured activity using K_AF (page 1, para 0012)], performing the AF key or the provided AF key [i.e., UE derives the same K_AF as the AAnF and AF…UE verifies integrity of AF responses using K_AF (MAC verification)…secured UE-AF communication is then established based on K_AF (page 1, para 0012) Note; performing secured application communication using the AF key].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of NAKARMI by adapting the teachings of Wang to key material generation optimization (See Wang; page 1, para 0002).
Regarding claim 2, NAKARMI discloses; the method according to claim 1, wherein the parameter known by both UE and the visited PLMN is a Generic Universal Temporary Identifier GUTI [i.e., the secret identifier 110 may comprise a Global Unique Temporary Identity (GUTI) (page 3, para 0038].
Regarding claim 3, NAKARMI discloses; the method according to claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)].
NAKARMI does disclose;
wherein an application function identifier to identify the concerned AF is included in exchanges between the UE and the visited PLMN.
However, Wang discloses;
an application function identifier to identify the concerned AF is included in exchanges between the UE and the visited PLMN [i.e., the AF requests the AF-specific key from the AAnf, providing a K_AKMA identifier and AF identifier…the AAnF derives K_AF from K_AKMA and provides it to the AF…the AF then forwards key-related parameters to the UE, enabling secured activity using K_AF (page 1, para 0012)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of NAKARMI by adapting the teachings of Wang to key material generation optimization (See Wang; page 1, para 0002).
Regarding claim 4, NAKARMI discloses; the method according to claim, wherein the UE having an Home Public Land Mobile Network PLMN [i.e., a home PLMN for a the UE 102 (page 2, para 0032), (see figure 1)].
NAKARMI does not disclose;
the provisioning of the application function key is done by the Home PLMN.
However, Wang discloses;
provisioning of the application function key is done by the Home PLMN [i.e., the AF requests the AF-specific key from the AAnf, providing a K_AKMA identifier and AF identifier…the AAnF derives K_AF from K_AKMA and provides it to the AF…the AF then forwards key-related parameters to the UE, enabling secured activity using K_AF (page 1, para 0012)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of NAKARMI by adapting the teachings of Wang to key material generation optimization (See Wang; page 1, para 0002).
Regarding claim 6, NAKARMI discloses; the method according to claim 1, wherein the roaming situation using an access management function, the step of, for the entity which encrypts the parameter known by both UE and the visited PLMN, sending the encrypted parameter to the other entity, comprises a sub-step of, for the encrypting entity, to send the encrypted parameter to the access management function which forwards it to the other entity [i.e., this comparison may result in a determination by the network node 106 that the encrypted secret identifier and the public identifier match. Such a match may indicate that the verification has succeeded (page 5, para 0047)].
Regarding claim 7, NAKARMI discloses; a user equipment UE [i.e., UE 102] having roaming features with a visited PLMN [i.e., the UE 102 is being served by a servicing PLMN 112 other than the home PLMN 114 (see figure 1), (page 2, para 0032 – page 3, para 0035) Note; this architecture in figure 1 clearly depicts roaming situation] using a parameter [i.e., secret identifier 110 (see figure 1)] known by both UE and visited PLMN [i.e., the secret identifier is a secret that is shared (emphasis added) between the UE and network node of the servicing PLMN 112 (see ref. 202 of figure 2), (page 2, para 0033), (see figure 1) i.e., the secret identifier 110 may comprise a Global Unique Temporary Identity (GUTI) (page 3, para 0038] and having a duty to enable lawful interception of its activities [i.e., the operation 108 may be an operation related to a lawful interception of the UE (page 4, para 0040), (page 2, para 0022), (see figure 1), (page 5, para 0047)], said UE comprising:
an encryption module adapted to encrypt the parameter known by both UE and visited PLMN [i.e., encrypt the secret identifier 110 (page 5, para 0047 and 0048)] using the stored key [i.e., encrypting the secret identifier with the first symmetric encryption key (page 5, para 0047 and 0048)] and/or to decrypt a received encrypted parameter using the stored AF key,
a transmission module adapted to send the encrypted parameter to the visited PLMN [i.e., send this public identifier, encrypted with the public key, to the network node 106 of the servicing PLMN 112 (page 5, para 0047 and 0048), (see figure 1)],
a processing module adapted to compare a decrypted parameter with the parameter as known by the UE in the case where the parameter is decrypted [i.e., compares the decrypted public identifier with the secret identifier (page 5, para 0047 and para 0049)], the transmission module being, in this case, further adapted to send the result of the comparison to an access management function for it to authorize only if the comparison shows that both parameters are the same [i.e., this comparison may result in a determination by the network node 106 that the encrypted secret identifier and the public identifier match. Such a match may indicate that the verification has succeeded (page 5, para 0047)].
NAKARMI does disclose;
with an application function AF associated to a bootstrapping technology, said activities using an AF key, visited PLMN having been provided, for lawful interception purposes, with a said provided application function key, encrypted the AF key or the provided AF key and decrypting with the provided AF key or the AF key.
However, Wang discloses;
a method to enable interception of activities of a user equipment UE with an application function AF associated to a bootstrapping technology [i.e., authentication and key management for application (AKMA) as bootstrapping security between a UE and an application function (AF) (page 1, para 0003 – 0004) i.e., AKMA is described as an evolution of Generic Bootstrapping Architecture (GBA) (page 1, para 0004) i.e., AKMA Anchor Function (AAnF) described as analogous to the Bootstrapping Server Function (BSF) in GBA (page 1, para 0006)], said activities using an AF key [i.e., KAF: The AF specific key…application key (page 1, para 0011) i.e., secure communication is established between the UE and the application based on the K_AF (page 1, para 0013)], visited PLMN having been provided, with a said provided application function key [i.e., the AF requests the AF-specific key from the AAnf, providing a K_AKMA identifier and AF identifier…the AAnF derives K_AF from K_AKMA and provides it to the AF…the AF then forwards key-related parameters to the UE, enabling secured activity using K_AF (page 1, para 0012)], performing the AF key or the provided AF key [i.e., UE derives the same K_AF as the AAnF and AF…UE verifies integrity of AF responses using K_AF (MAC verification)…secured UE-AF communication is then established based on K_AF (page 1, para 0012) Note; performing secured application communication using the AF key].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of NAKARMI by adapting the teachings of Wang to key material generation optimization (See Wang; page 1, para 0002).
Regarding claim 8, NAKARMI discloses; a PLMN [i.e., serving PLMN 112 (see figure 1), (page 2, para 0032)] adapted to attach a user equipment UE in a roaming situation as a visited Public Land Mobile Network PLMN [i.e., the UE 102 is being served by a servicing PLMN 112 other than the home PLMN 114 (see figure 1), (page 2, para 0032 – page 3, para 0035) Note; this architecture in figure 1 clearly depicts roaming situation] using a parameter [i.e., secret identifier 110 (see figure 1)] known by both UE and itself as a visited PLMN [i.e., the secret identifier is a secret that is shared (emphasis added) between the UE and network node of the servicing PLMN 112 (see ref. 202 of figure 2), (page 2, para 0033), (see figure 1) i.e., the secret identifier 110 may comprise a Global Unique Temporary Identity (GUTI) (page 3, para 0038] and adapted to enable lawful interception of activities of the UE [i.e., the operation 108 may be an operation related to a lawful interception of the UE (page 4, para 0040), (page 2, para 0022), (see figure 1)], said PLMN further comprising:
a decryption module adapted to decrypt a received encrypted parameter using the provided key [i.e., decrypts the public identifier with the second symmetric encryption key (page 5, para 0049) i.e., the second symmetric key is the same as the first symmetric key (page 5, para 0048)],
reception module adapted or to receive the encrypted parameter from the UE [i.e., send this public identifier, encrypted with the public key, to the network node 106 of the servicing PLMN 112 (page 5, para 0047 and 0048), (see figure 1)],
a processing module adapted to compare a decrypted parameter with the parameter as known by PLMN in the case where the parameter is decrypted by the PLMN [i.e., compares the decrypted public identifier with the secret identifier (page 5, para 0047 and para 0049)], the reception/transmission module being, in this case, further adapted to send the result of the comparison to an access management function for it to authorize only if the comparison shows that both parameter are the same [i.e., this comparison may result in a determination by the network node 106 that the encrypted secret identifier and the public identifier match. Such a match may indicate that the verification has succeeded (page 5, para 0047)].
NAKARMI does disclose;
with an application function AF associated to a bootstrapping technology, said activities using an AF key, visited PLMN having been provided, for lawful interception purposes, with a said provided application function key, encrypted the AF key or the provided AF key and decrypting with the provided AF key or the AF key.
However, Wang discloses;
a method to enable interception of activities of a user equipment UE with an application function AF associated to a bootstrapping technology [i.e., authentication and key management for application (AKMA) as bootstrapping security between a UE and an application function (AF) (page 1, para 0003 – 0004) i.e., AKMA is described as an evolution of Generic Bootstrapping Architecture (GBA) (page 1, para 0004) i.e., AKMA Anchor Function (AAnF) described as analogous to the Bootstrapping Server Function (BSF) in GBA (page 1, para 0006)], said activities using an AF key [i.e., KAF: The AF specific key…application key (page 1, para 0011) i.e., secure communication is established between the UE and the application based on the K_AF (page 1, para 0013)], visited PLMN having been provided, with a said provided application function key [i.e., the AF requests the AF-specific key from the AAnf, providing a K_AKMA identifier and AF identifier…the AAnF derives K_AF from K_AKMA and provides it to the AF…the AF then forwards key-related parameters to the UE, enabling secured activity using K_AF (page 1, para 0012)], performing the AF key or the provided AF key [i.e., UE derives the same K_AF as the AAnF and AF…UE verifies integrity of AF responses using K_AF (MAC verification)…secured UE-AF communication is then established based on K_AF (page 1, para 0012) Note; performing secured application communication using the AF key].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of NAKARMI by adapting the teachings of Wang to key material generation optimization (See Wang; page 1, para 0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5;
the prior art of record, NAKARMI and Wand discloses the method according to claim 1,
However, NAKARMI and Wang do not disclose “wherein the bootstrapping technology implementing an Anchor Function in PLMN, said anchor function storing application function keys resulting from bootstrapping technology, the steps as performed by the visited PLMN are performed by the Anchor Function of the visited PLMN”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 5 is objected being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 9;
the prior art of record, NAKARMI and Wand discloses the PLMN according to claim 8,
However, NAKARMI and Wang do not disclose “said PLMN having a bootstrapping Anchor Function to enable lawful interception of activities of a user equipment UE with an application function AF associated to a bootstrapping technology, said activities using an AF key, while the UE is in a roaming situation with a visited Public Land Mobile Network PLMN using a parameter known by both UE and visited PLMN, said visited PLMN having been provided, for lawful interception purposes, with a provided application function key, respectively, for the UE or for the visited PLMN, by: sending the parameter known by both UE and visited PLMN encrypted with, respectively, the AF key or the provided AF key, to, respectively, the visited PLMN or the UE; and for, respectively, the visited PLMN or the UE, which received the encrypted parameter: decrypting the encrypted parameter with, respectively, the provided AF key or the AF key,; and comparing the decrypted parameter with the parameter as known by, respectively, the visited PLMN or the UE which received the encrypted parameter,; and authorizing the use of the AF only if the comparison shows that both parameters are the same”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 9 is objected being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the followings;
Regarding to 112(f), Applicant argued that the recited modules constitute sufficient definite structure because the terms allegedly connote specific, well-understood hardware and/or software components to one of ordinary skill in the telecommunications and network-security arts. Applicant further argues that the terms have recognized structural meaning in the 3GPP and telecommunication context (See Remarks; page 2).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument because as claimed, the term “module” constitutes a generic placeholder rather than the name of a particular structure component. The modifiers “encryption/decryption”, “reception/transmission”, and “processing” do not impart sufficient definite structure to the respective modules. Rather, the modifiers identify the functions to be performed by the respective modules. For example, the limitation “encryption/decryption module adapted to encrypt/decrypt” identifies the module according to its functions of encryption and decryption rather than reciting the particular structure by which those functions are performed. Similarly, “reception/transmission module adapted to send/receive” identifies the module according to the functions of sending and receiving, and “processing module adapted to compare” identifies the module according to the function of comparing. Thus, the limitations satisfy the three-prong analysis. Applicant’s general assertion that such modules constitutes well-understood hardware/software components in the telecommunications or 3GPP arts does not establish that the particular claim terms would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as name for sufficient definite structures capable of performing the entirety of the recited functions. The issue is not whether encryption, transmission, reception or comparison were known functions, by whether the claim language recites sufficient definite structure for performing those functions.
Applicant further argued that the specification provides structural support for each module.
The Examiner respectfully directs the applicant attention to the fact that whether the specification discloses corresponding structure is distinct from the threshold determination of whether 112(f) applies. Accordingly, the existence of corresponding structure in the specification does not by itself establish that the claim terminology recites sufficiently definite structures so as to avoid 112(f).
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the Examiner maintains the interpretation of these limitation under 112(f).
Regarding 103 rejection, applicant argued that the prior art of record, Nakarmi is directed merely to verification of the identity of a UE rather than verification of an Application Function (AF) key, that the prior art of record, Wang is directed to optimization of AKMA key-material generation rather than lawful interception, and that neither references teaches providing an AF key to a visited PLMN and verifying the correctness of that AF key in the manner recited in claim 1 (See Remarks; pages 2 – 7).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The Examiner respectfully directs the applicant’s attention to the fact that the rejection does not rely upon Nakarmi alone as teaching every limitation of claim 1. Rather, the rejection relies upon the combined teachings of Nakarmi and Wang. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments against the references individually are not persuasive where the rejection is based upon what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Nakarmi expressly addresses a UE being served by a serving PLMN different from its home PLMN and permits the serving PLMN to perform an operation related to the UE, including lawful interception. Nakarmi explains that the secret identifier may be required by the serving PLMN to perform such as operation (Nakarmi; para 32 – 33 and para 22). Thus, contrary to Applicant’s characterization, Nakarmi is directly concerned with enabling a serving PLMN to reliably perform operations including lawful interception in circumstances involving a UE and a disparate home PLMN. Moreover, Nakarmi does not merely disclose generic “identity verification”. Nakarmi expressly teaches a cryptographic verification procedure involving information separately available from the UE and home PLMN. In the ECIES embodiment of para 0048, the UE generates a first symmetric encryption key and encrypts the secret identifier using that key. The resulted encrypted public identifier is provided to the serving PLMN. The home PLMN generates a corresponding second symmetric encryption key and provides that key and the secret identifier to the serving PLMN. Nakarmi explains that the first and second symmetric keys are the same due to the properties of the underlying key-exchange algorithm. The serving PLMN may therefore cryptographically process the identifier and compare the resulting values to perform verification. Significantly, Nakarmi (para 0049) expressly teaches the claimed decrypt and compare alternative. Rather than encrypting the secret identifier received from the home PLMN, the serving PLMN decrypt the public identifier using the second symmetric encryption key and compares the decrypted public identifier with the secret identifier. Accordingly, Nakarmi teaches the underlying verification technique recited by claim 1. Nakarmi further expressly explains the security purpose of this verification. Upon a successful comparison, the serving PLMN verifies that the public identifier and secret identifier correspond to the same UE. Nakarmi states that this makes an operation such as lawful interception more reliable by determining that the UE and home PLMN are not “cheating” the serving PLMN. Thus, the cryptographic comparison in Nakarmi is expressly tied to increasing the reliability of lawful interception operations performed by the serving PLMN, rather than being an unrelated authentication procedure as Applicant contends. The Examiner acknowledges that Nakarmi does not expressly identify the cryptographic key as an AF-specific key associated with a bootstrapping technology. The Examiner relied upon Wang for that teaching. Wang teaches Authentication and Key Management for Application (AKMA), which leverages authentication credentials to bootstrap security between a UE and an Application Function (AF) and is described as an evolution Generic Bootstrapping Architecture (GBA). Wang further explains that the AAnF is analogous to the BSF of GBA and provides key-materials functionality for communication between the UE and AF (para 0003 – 0007). Wang specifically identifies KAF as the AF-specific application key, derived from KAKMA by the UE and AAnF and used by the UE and AKMA AF to securely exchange data (para 0011). Wang further teaches that the AAnF derives KAF and provides KAF to the AF, while the UE derives the same KAF. The AF may calculate a MAC using KAF, and the UE uses its independently derived KAF to verify the integrity of the response. Secured UE-AF communication is thereafter established based upon KAF (para 0011 – 0013). Therefore, applicant’s argument that Wang does not disclose providing KAF to a visited PLMN is not persuasive.
Further, applicant’s assertion that Wang is directed to “key material generation optimization” does not establish non-obviousness. Although, Wang addresses optimization of AKMA key-material generation, Wang nevertheless expressly teaches the underlying AKMA architecture, the AF-specific KAF, provision of KAF to the AF, independent derivation of the same KAF by the UE, cryptographic use of KAF for integrity verification, and establishment of secured UE-AF communication using KAF. Furthermore, the fact that Nakarmi uses its cryptographic verification to determine correspondence of UE identifiers whereas the claimed method applies the verification to an AF key does not render the combination nonobvious. Nakarmi’s verification mechanism operates by applying corresponding cryptographic key material to information available through the UE/home-network sides and comparing the resulting information at the serving PLMN. Wang demonstrates that KAF is likewise corresponding cryptographic key material associated with the UE and AF communication. Applying Nakarmi’s known verification technique to Wang’s KAF-based secured application communication would have involved the predictable use of the known verification technique according to its established function.
Regarding dependent claims; applicant argued that for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 8, the dependent claims 2 – 6 and 9 are also patentable.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument because of the response to argument with respect to claims 1, 7 and 8 above.
Regarding claim 2, applicant argues that Nakarmi uses GUTI for UE identity purposes rather than as a parameter for AF-key verification.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument because claim 2 merely further specifies that the parameter of claim 1 is a GUTI. Nakarmi expressly discloses that the secret identifier 110, mapped to the claimed parameter, may comprise a GUTI (Nakarmi, para (0038)). The AF-key verification limitations are addressed by the combined teachings of Nakarmi and Wang as discussed with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claims 5 and 9 are persuasive. The rejection of claims 5 and 9 have been withdrawn.
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 SYED A RONI whose telephone number is (571)270-7806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 pm (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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A RONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
