DETAILED ACTION
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
A preliminary amendment was received concurrently with the filing of the present application on 09 October 2024. This preliminary amendment does not clearly comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) that the text of any deleted subject matter must be placed within double brackets if strikethrough cannot be easily perceived, noting that double brackets may also be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. In particular, in at least Claims 8, 15, 17, and 19, it appears that certain text (e.g. single letters such as “s”) may be intended to be marked with strikethrough for deletion. However, in the font used, it is difficult to perceive whether such text is, in fact, marked with strikethrough. It is also difficult for optical character recognition to correctly interpret such characters as struck through. See also MPEP § 714 II.C(B). For purposes of advancing prosecution and as a courtesy, the amendments have been treated as though they were fully compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(c). Applicant is reminded that future amendments must fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121.
By the above preliminary amendment, Claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19 have been amended. Claim 18 has been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-17 and 19 are currently pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “510” and “610” have both been used to designate a processor; reference characters “520” and “620” have both been used to designate a memory; reference characters “530” and “630” have both been used to designate a communication apparatus; reference characters “540” and “640” have both been used to designate an input apparatus; and reference characters “550” and “650” have both been used to designate an output apparatus. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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. 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 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant 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.
The drawings are objected to because they include informalities. In Figure 2, clarity may be increased by including reference numerals for the various steps/decisions in the flowchart. Further, in Figure 2, in the first step (“subscription data of the UE is deleted”) it is not clear why this is indicated as a decision diamond if no decision is made. In the second step (“whether the AKMA service is done before”) it is not clear what is meant by “is done before”, although it may be intended to read that the AKMA service was previously used or similar. Figures 10 and 11 appear to be duplicates of each other; although it appears that the specification may intend for these to depict distinct devices, there is no labeling to distinguish these diagrams from each other (for example, by labeling the total system as the key anchor node or application server as appropriate). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant 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
It is noted that it may be appropriate to add a paragraph number, e.g. [0000.1], to the paragraph added before paragraph 0001 (see page 2 of the preliminary amendment) for ease of future reference.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 1, it appears that “applied to” may be intended to read “performed by” or “executed by” if the method is actually performed/executed by the key anchor node.
In Claim 6, lines 1-2, it appears that “before receiving the AKMA context deletion request” should be moved after “the method further comprising” to increase clarity.
In Claim 9, line 1, it appears that “applied to” may be intended to read “performed by” or “executed by” if the method is actually performed/executed by the application server.
In Claim 13, lines 1-2, it appears that “before receiving the application key deletion request message” should be moved after “the method further comprising” to increase clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-8, 11, 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 3 recites “the key identifier is used for indicating that the target application server deletes an application key corresponding to the key identifier” in lines 5-7. First, it is not clear whether the “indicating” is a step of the claimed method and more specifically whether the indicating is a step that is part of the claimed sending of the message. Further, the grammar of the phrase “indicating that the target application server deletes” is unclear with respect to the tense of the verb “deletes” and the relative timing of such deletion, although it appears that this may be intended to recite that the key identifier indicates that the target application server “is to delete” the application key or similar.
Claim 4 recites “the key identifier is further used for indicating that the target application server deletes an expiry time” in lines 1-2. First, it is not clear whether the “indicating” is a step of the claimed method. Further, the grammar of the phrase “indicating that the target application server deletes” is unclear with respect to the tense of the verb “deletes” and the relative timing of such deletion, although it appears that this may be intended to recite that the key identifier indicates that the target application server “is to delete” the expiry time or similar.
Claim 6 recites “an application server identifier” in line 5. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same application server identifier recited in Claim 1 or to a distinct identifier.
Claim 8 recites “the application server” in lines 3 and 6. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Although Claim 1 recites an application server identifier, there is not an explicit prior recitation of the server itself.
Claim 11 recites “the application key deletion request message is sent by a key anchor node…” in lines 1-2. It is not clear whether such sending is a step of the method or how the sending by a key anchor node would provide a limit on a method performed by an application server.
Claim 16 recites “searching an AKMA context corresponding to the user identifier and an application server identifier corresponding to the AKMA context according to the user identifier” in lines 8-9. The long string of modifier phrases (i.e. “corresponding to” and “according to”) makes it grammatically unclear what “according to the user identifier” is intended to modify.
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 1-8, 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 (cited by Applicant).
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 an application key deletion request message and deleting the context (paragraph 105, the AF is notified that the context is deleted so the key can be deleted).
In reference to Claim 2, Gupta further discloses 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 application key deletion request 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 deletion request message includes a key identifier used to indicate that the target application server is 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 deletion request message to the target application server if located within an operator network and sending the deletion request 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.
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.
Claims 9-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta, WIPO Publication WO 2022/019619 (cited by Applicant), in view of Ericsson, “Updates Solution #14”, 3GPP Draft S3-190821 (cited by Applicant).
In reference to Claim 9, Gupta discloses a method performed by an application server (application function AF corresponds to claimed application server as per paragraph 0025 of the present specification) that includes receiving an application key deletion request message that carries a key identifier (paragraph 105, the AF is notified that the context is deleted so the key can be deleted). However, although it is implied that the key corresponding to the deleted context should be deleted, Gupta does not explicitly disclose deleting the corresponding application key. Ericsson discloses a method that includes an application server receiving a revocation request from a key anchor and deleting an application key corresponding to a key identifier in the message (section 6.14.2.1, KAFID is key identifier in revocation request corresponding to key deletion request message; when AF receives revocation request, it shall delete the key pointed out by the request). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gupta to explicitly include the implicit deletion of the key as taught by Ericsson, in order to benefit from existing security procedures (see Ericsson, section 6.14.2.1).
In reference to Claim 10, Gupta and Ericsson further disclose deleting an expiry of the application key (see Gupta, 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 11, Gupta and Ericsson further disclose that the key deletion request message is sent by the key anchor node in response to finding an application server identifier corresponding to an AKMA context where the context corresponds to a user identifier in a context deletion request (Gupta, paragraph 98, finding AF identity for callback, and paragraph 105, the AF is notified that the context is deleted so the key can be deleted).
In reference to Claim 12, Gupta and Ericsson further disclose receiving the deletion request message if the application server is located within an operator network and receiving the deletion request message through a network exposure function if the application server is located outside the operator network (Gupta, paragraphs 98, 105, AF or NEF is notified as appropriate).
In reference to Claim 13, Gupta and Ericsson further disclose sending an application key acquisition message that includes a key identifier and application server identifier of an application server that initiates a service establishment request (Gupta, 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 14, Gupta and Ericsson further disclose sending the key acquisition message to the key anchor node if the application server is located within an operator network and sending the key acquisition message through a network exposure function if the application server is located outside the operator network (Gupta, paragraphs 98, 105, AF or NEF is notified as appropriate).
In reference to Claim 15, Gupta and Ericsson further disclose 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 Gupta, 97, FQDN, noting that the embodiment of FQDN with protocol identifier is recited in the alternative).
Claim 17 is directed to an application server having functionality corresponding substantially to the method of Claim 9, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ben Henda et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0095104, discloses a method for key revocation in AMKA.
Guo et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0278835, discloses a system for application function key generation, renewal, and deletion using AKMA key anchors.
Guo et al, US Patent Application Publication 2023/0086032, discloses a method for deletion and management of application keys in an AKMA service.
Gupta et al, US Patent Application Publication 2023/0292112, corresponds to the Gupta WIPO publication cited above.
Liang et al, US Patent Application Publication 2025/0184330, discloses a method for authorization revocation in a system using AKMA.
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