DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the response received February 11, 2026 (the Response). Applicants’ election without traverse is acknowledged. See Response 7 (reciting “Applicant elects to prosecute claims 1–10, 15, and 16 of Group I, and to cancel claims 11–14, and 17–20 of Group Il without traverse.”).
Claims 1–10, 15, 16, and 21–28 are currently pending.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Provisional Application
The instant application claims benefit to provisional application No. 63/324,241 filed on March 28, 2022 under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS filed December 28, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDS has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3) recites “Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3) for failing to include letters measuring at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. See Figs. 3–6.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) recites “These [numbering of sheets of drawings], if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. . . . The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion.” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) for failing to include the numbering of sheets of drawings (1) in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin and (2) larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicants are advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicants will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b):
The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.
MPEP § 608.01(b) recites “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, ‘This disclosure concerns,’ ‘The disclosure defined by this invention,’ ‘This disclosure describes,’ etc.”
The abstract is objected to under § 1.72(b) for using phrases that can be implied. The Examiner recommends deleting “Various aspects of the present disclosure relate to.”
Means-plus-Function Language
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(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 claims in the instant 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) 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):
(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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in the instant application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The instant 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) 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 limitations1 are:
“apparatus” (claim 21, line 1).
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), claims 21–28 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With respect to the claimed function corresponding to the “apparatus” (claim 21, line 1), the Specification discloses “processor and the transceiver” that achieves the claimed function. Spec. ¶ 77.
If Applicants do not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicants may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke § 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of § 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011) (available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 1–10 and 21–28 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular,
(i) claim 1, lines 10–11, “based on at least one of expiry of authentication information or the cause information” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to
(A) based on at least one of (a) expiry of authentication information or (b) the cause information; or
(B) based on at least one of expiry of (a) authentication information or (b) the cause information.
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to (A). See MPEP § 2173.06 (reciting “When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection.”; emphasis omitted).
Claim 21, lines 6–7 by analogy.
(ii) claim 8, lines 3–4, “an authentication trigger request” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to the authentication trigger request introduced in claim 1, line 8 or not.
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to the authentication trigger request introduced in claim 1, line 8.
Claim 27, lines 2–3 by analogy.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Castellanos Zamora et al. (WO 2021/094109 A1; filed Oct. 30, 2020).
Regarding claim 15, Castellanos Zamora discloses an apparatus (fig. 2, item “AUSF 600”) for wireless communication (intended use in italics; see § MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
at least one memory (fig. 6, item 605 of item “AUSF 600”; “Figure 6 is a block diagram illustrating an authentication server function (AUSF) node” at ¶ 18);
at least one processor (fig. 6, item 603) coupled to with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive an authentication request (“Nausf_UEAuthentication_ReAuthentication Notification” at fig. 2) from unified data management (UDM) (fig. 2, item “UDM 700”) to initiate reauthentication (intended use in italics), an authentication message comprising one or more of a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) or an indication (“Nausf_UEAuthentication_ReAuthentication Notification” at fig. 2 indicates reauthentication is required) that reauthentication is required; and
transmit an acknowledgement (ACK) (fig. 2, item 206) to the UDM in response to an authentication response (fig. 2, operation 5; ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 16, Castellanos Zamora discloses wherein the ACK indicates one of an authentication success or an authentication failure (“the result of the primary authentication procedure (successful or unsuccessful)” at ¶ 52).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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, 4, 5, 21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Castellanos Zamora in view of Gupta et al. (US 2024/0251239 A1; PCT filed Feb. 9, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, while Castellanos Zamora teaches an apparatus (fig. 2, item “UDM 700”) or wireless communication (intended use in italics; see § MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
at least one memory (fig. 7, item 705 of “UDM 700”; “Figure 7 is a block diagram illustrating a unified data management, UDM” at ¶ 19);
at least one processor (fig. 7, item 703) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive an authentication trigger request (fig. 2, item 200; “a request from a NEF to update subscription data which will need to be notified to the AMF” at ¶ 44) from a network function (“NEF” at ¶ 44) with cause information (¶ 44);
determine to initiate reauthentication (fig. 2, item 202; “the processing circuitry 703 may trigger a HN initiated primary authentication/re-authentication procedure for the communication device 400” at ¶ 45) based on at least one of expiry of authentication information or the cause information (fig. 2, item 200; ¶ 44); and
transmit an authentication message (“Nausf_UEAuthentication_ReAuthentication Notification” at fig. 2 that is transferred from item 700 to 500) to at least one of a mobility management function (AMF) (fig. 2, item 500) or a security anchor function (SEAF) to initiate the reauthentication (intended use in italics),
Castellanos Zamora does not teach setting an expiration time for security information associated with primary authentication being successful (intended use in italics).
Gupta teaches setting an expiration time (“before an authentication period of a DN-authorized PDU session expires” at ¶ 68 involves setting an expiration time to determine whether the DN-authorized PDU session expires) for security information associated with primary authentication being successful (intended use in italics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Castellanos Zamora to include setting an expiration time for security information associated with primary authentication being successful (intended use in italics) as taught by Baek “to develop an improved 5G or pre-5G communication system.” Baek ¶ 3.
Regarding claim 4, Castellanos Zamora teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to initiate the reauthentication (fig. 2, item 202; “the processing circuitry 703 may trigger a HN initiated primary authentication /re-authentication procedure for the communication device 400” at ¶ 45) based on an authentication policy (¶ 44) by a home network operator (fig. 2, item 400).
Regarding claim 5, Castellanos Zamora teaches wherein the security information comprises one or more of an authentication server function (AUSF) key (K.sub.AUSF), an authentication and key management for applications (AKMA) key (K.sub.AKMA), an authentication vector, a primary authentication status, or a primary authentication result (the Examiner notes claim 5 further limits an intended use limitation of claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, Castellanos Zamora teaches a method performed by an apparatus (fig. 2, item 700), the method comprising operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 21.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, claims 4 and 5, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 4 and 5 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 24 and 25.
Claims 6–9 and 26–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Castellanos Zamora in view of Gupta, and in further view of Baskaran et al. (US 2023/0262457 A1; PCT filed June 28, 2021).
Regarding claim 6, while Castellanos Zamora teaches wherein authentication data (fig. 2, item 204) provided from unified data management (UDM) (fig. 2, item 700) to an authentication server function (AUSF) (fig. 2, item 600) comprises information (“Nausf_UEAuthentication_ReAuthentication Notification” at fig. 2),
Castellanos Zamora does not teach the information being one or more of an authentication vector (AV), an expiry time of the AV, an expiry time of the primary authentication, a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI), a key management for applications (AKMA) indication, or a routing indicator.
Baskaran teaches information being one or more of an authentication vector (AV), an expiry time of the AV, an expiry time of the primary authentication, a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) (“Nausf_UEAuthentication_Authenticate Request message may contain the following parameters: User Subscription ID (i.e., SUCI or SUPI)” at ¶ 89), a key management for applications (AKMA) indication, or a routing indicator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Castellanos Zamora’s information to be one or more of an authentication vector (AV), an expiry time of the AV, an expiry time of the primary authentication, a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI), a key management for applications (AKMA) indication, or a routing indicator as taught by Baskaran for “security handling in Fifth Generation (“5G”) Systems.” Baskaran ¶ 2.
Regarding claim 7, while Castellanos Zamora teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit an authentication request (fig. 2, item 204) to the AMF or the SEAF (fig. 2, item 500) to initiate the reauthentication (intended use in italics),
Castellanos Zamora does not teach the authentication request comprising one or more of a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) or an indication that the reauthentication is required.
Baskaran teaches an authentication request comprising one or more of a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) (“Nausf_UEAuthentication_Authenticate Request message may contain the following parameters: User Subscription ID (i.e., SUCI or SUPI)” at ¶ 89) or an indication that the reauthentication is required.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Castellanos Zamora’s authentication request to comprise one or more of a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) or an indication that the reauthentication is required as taught by Baskaran for “security handling in Fifth Generation (“5G”) Systems.” Baskaran ¶ 2.
Regarding claim 8, while Castellanos Zamora teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive an acknowledgement (ACK) (fig. 2, item 206; ¶ 64) from a AUSF (fig. 2, item 600) in response to an authentication trigger request (“Nausf_UEAuthentication_ReAuthentication Notification” at fig. 2) transmitted to the AMF or the SEAF (fig. 2, item 500),
Castellanos Zamora does not teach the AUSF being the AMF or the SEAF.
Castellanos Zamora teaches the AMF or the SEAF (fig. 2, item 500).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Castellanos Zamora’s AUSF to be the AMF or the SEAF as taught by Castellanos Zamora to ensure Castellanos Zamora’s AMF or SEAF—the final destination that receives the authentication trigger request— successfully received the authentication trigger request. Such a system results in a more accurate system because it is the final destination receiving the authentication trigger request that confirms.
Regarding claim 9, Castellanos Zamora teaches wherein the ACK indicates one of an authentication success or an authentication failure (“the result of the primary authentication procedure (successful or unsuccessful)” at ¶ 52).
Regarding claims 26–28, claims 7–9, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 7–9 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 26–28.
Claims 1, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Baek et al. (US 2020/0267223 A1; filed Feb. 2, 2020) in view of Gupta.
Regarding claim 1, while Baek teaches an apparatus (fig. 3, item “UE (EAP Client)”; “terminal (UE)” at ¶ 59) for wireless communication (intended use in italics; see § MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
at least one memory (fig. 6, item 620; “Referring to FIG. 6, a terminal may include . . . a memory 630” at ¶ 98);
at least one processor (fig. 6, item 610; “Referring to FIG. 6, a terminal may include . . . a processor 610” at ¶ 98) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
set an expiration time (“before an authentication period of a DN-authorized PDU session expires” at ¶ 68 involves setting an expiration time to determine whether the DN-authorized PDU session expires) for security information associated with primary authentication being successful (intended use in italics);
determine to initiate reauthentication (“before an authentication period of a DN-authorized PDU session expires . . . the terminal determines that re-authentication . . . of the PDU session is required” at ¶ 68) based on at least one of expiry of authentication information (“before an authentication period of a DN-authorized PDU session expires” at ¶ 68) or the cause information; and
transmit an authentication message (fig. 3, item 320) to a session management function (SMF) (fig. 3, item “SMF (Authenticator)”) to initiate the reauthentication (intended use in italics),
Baek does not teach (A) receiving an authentication trigger request from a network function with cause information; and (B) the SMF being at least one of a mobility management function (AMF) or a security anchor function (SEAF).
(A)
Gupta teaches receiving an authentication trigger request from a network function with cause information (fig. 6, item 620; “At 620, the NSWO NF 132 may send an authentication-request message (for example, Nausf_UEAuthentication_Authenticate_request message) to the AUSF 136. The authentication-request message may trigger an authenticate service operation that permits NSWO NF 132 to initiate authentication of the UE 104.” at ¶ 91).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Baek to include receiving an authentication trigger request from a network function with cause information as taught by Gupta “to initiate authentication of the UE.” Gupta ¶ 91. Authenticating a UE safeguards personal data and ensures that only authorized individuals gain access to sensitive systems and data in the UE.
(B)
Baek teaches at least one of a mobility management function (AMF) (fig. 3, item “AMF”) or a security anchor function (SEAF)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Baek’s SMF to be at least one of an AMF or a SEAF as taught by Baek “to develop an improved 5G or pre-5G communication system.” Baek ¶ 3.
Regarding claim 10, while Baek teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus (fig. 3, item “UE (EAP Client)”; “terminal (UE)” at ¶ 59) to receive an acknowledgement (ACK) (fig. 3, item 11a; “notifies the terminal through an EAP-finish or an EAP-Success that the DN has been reauthenticated successfully” at ¶ 75) from an SMF (fig. 3, item 320) in response to an authentication trigger request (fig. 3, item 310),
Baek does not teach the SMF being a unified data management (UDM).
Gupta teaches a UDM (fig. 1, item 140)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Baek’s SMF to be a UDM as taught by Gupta for “managing non-seamless wireless local area network offload (NSWO).” Gupta ¶ 1.
Regarding claim 21, Baek teaches a method performed by an apparatus (fig. 3, item “UE (EAP Client)”; “terminal (UE)” at ¶ 59), the method comprising operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to (1) overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action; and (2) include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20230388797-A1; US-20220264295-A1; US-20220174497-A1; WO-2021185316-A1; and Yoshizawa et al., Overview of 5G URLLC System and Security Aspects in 3GPP, 2019 IEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN), pp. 1–5 (2019).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner notes “Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise.” Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2021). See also Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term “compliance mechanism” in a method claim was a means-plus-function term); see also MPEP § 2181.