DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 20 July 2026. By this response, Claims 1, 3-8, and 16 have been amended. Claims 2, 9-15, and 17 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 3-8, 16, and 19 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-8, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as anticipated by Gupta et al, WIPO Publication WO 2022/019619, and with particular reference to amended independent Claim 1, Applicant argues that Gupta does not disclose deleting the AKMA context in response to not finding the application server identifier because Gupta allegedly discloses an unconditional scheme where the AKMA context is deleted without any pre-verification (see page 10 of the present response, citing Gupta, paragraph 0091). Applicant asserts that the “action of directly deleting the AKMA context is only executed upon a specific negative lookup result… as the triggering condition” (page 10 of the present response). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., directly deleting only upon not finding the identifier) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim makes no mention of “directly” deleting the AKMA context. The claim recites deleting the AKMA context in response to both finding the application server identifier and not finding the application server identifier, and therefore the claim does not recite only deleting the AKMA context upon the negative lookup result “when no application server identifier is searched”. The claim makes no distinction in the manner of deletion between the two conditions, and therefore Gupta discloses deleting the AKMA context in the key anchor node (paragraph 91) as well as sending a notification message when the application server identifier is found (paragraph 105, AF notified that the context is deleted) as claimed.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings for failure to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and for informalities are withdrawn in light of the amended drawings filed.
Specification
It is noted that the paragraphs have been renumbered in the substitute specification. Applicant is requested to specify the version of the specification when making any future reference to any paragraphs of the specification.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 for informalities is withdrawn (or moot) in light of the amendments to (or cancellation of) the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 3-5, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is withdrawn (or moot) in light of the amendments to (or cancellation of) the claims. The rejection of Claims 6, 7, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is NOT withdrawn, because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
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 6, 7, and 16 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.
Claim 6 recites “the application server” in lines 5, 7, and 8. However, the claim recites at least one application server in lines 3-4, and therefore, it is not clear to which of the potentially plural servers these limitations are intended to refer.
Claim 7 recites “the application server” in lines 2 and 4-7. It is not clear to which of the potentially plural servers these limitations are intended to refer.
Claim 16 recites “searching an AKMA context corresponding to the user identifier according to the user identifier” in lines 8-9. The string of modifier phrases (i.e. “corresponding to” and “according to”) still makes it grammatically unclear what “according to the user identifier” is intended to modify. If the AKMA context already corresponds to the user identifier, it is not clear how it would be searched according to the user identifier. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1, 3-8, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Gupta et al, WIPO Publication WO 2022/019619.
In reference to Claim 1, Gupta discloses a method performed by a key anchor node (for example, Figure 1, steps 104-106, and Figure 6, steps 606-610 performed by AAnF, AKMA anchor function corresponding to key anchor node) that includes receiving an AKMA context deletion request that carries a user identifier (see steps 104 and 304, and paragraphs 65-66, request to AAnF to delete context that includes identifier of SUPI/UE, noting that the present specification indicates the user identifier may be a SUPI, paragraph 0037); searching, according to the user identifier, a corresponding AKMA context and an application server identifier corresponding to the context (again, see steps 104, 304, as well as 404-406, paragraph 54, where the context contains one or more keys of the SUPI to be removed; see also paragraph 98, finding AF identity for callback, where AF or application function corresponds to the claimed application server as per paragraph 0025 of the present specification); and in response to finding the application server identifier, sending a notification message and deleting the context (paragraph 105, the AF is notified that the context is deleted so the key can be deleted), and deleting the context in response to not finding the server identifier (see paragraph 91, context deleted in AAnF).
In reference to Claims 3 and 4, Gupta further discloses determining a target application server according to the application server identifier (paragraph 98, AF identity included in request, and callback address for transmitting back notifications) and sending the notification message to the target application server (paragraph 105, the AF is notified that the context is deleted so the key can be deleted), where the notification message includes a key identifier to instruct the target application server to delete an application key and corresponding expiry time (see paragraph 98, A-KID is key identifier of key to be deleted, note also paragraphs 6-7 and 99, expiry or limited validity of keys, where if key is deleted, associated expiration information should also be deleted).
In reference to Claim 5, Gupta further discloses sending the notification message to the target application server if located within an operator network and sending the notification message through a network exposure function if the target application server is located outside the operator network (paragraphs 98, 105, AF or NEF is notified as appropriate).
In reference to Claim 6, Gupta further discloses receiving and storing an application key acquisition message that includes a key identifier and application server identifier of an application server that initiates a service establishment request (Figure 5, steps 508-512, and paragraphs 97-99, generating and providing/storing application key, where application server AF initiated service establishment request to serve particular user equipment, step 504 and paragraph 95).
In reference to Claim 7, Gupta further discloses receiving the key acquisition message to the application server if located within an operator network and receiving the key acquisition message through a network exposure function if the application server is located outside the operator network (paragraphs 98, 105, AF or NEF is notified as appropriate).
In reference to Claim 8, Gupta further discloses that the application server identifier is a fully qualified domain name of the application server or a protocol identifier along with a fully qualified domain name (see paragraph 97, FQDN, noting that the embodiment of FQDN with protocol identifier is recited in the alternative).
Claim 16 is directed to a key anchor node having functionality corresponding substantially to the method of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19 is directed to a software implementation of the method of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights