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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
In communications filed on 7/31/2026, claims 1-12, 22, 24, 26, and 28-32 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 5, and 8 are independent.
Amended claim(s): 1-10.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 7/31/2026, with respect to claim(s) rejected under prior art have been considered but are not persuasive. Zeus explicitly discloses it’s the UDM that initiates authentication/re-authentication based on SOR information (Zeus: ¶200).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12, 22, 24, 26, and 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200344606 A1 (hereinafter ‘Zaus’) in view of US 20250184729 A1 (hereinafter ‘Baskaran’).
As regards claim 1, Zaus (US 20200344606 A1) discloses: An authentication method, (Zaus: Figs. 13-14), comprising: receiving authentication procedure trigger information from an authentication server function (AUSF) network element, wherein the authentication procedure trigger information comprises an identifier of a user equipment (UE) corresponding to the AUSF network element (Zaus: Fig. 13, ¶201-¶203, i.e., the SUPI information (unique UE id) and msg for authentication), and the authentication procedure trigger information indicates a unified data management (UDM) network element to trigger an authentication procedure for the UE; and (Zaus: Fig. 13, msg 1312c from AUSF 1306 to UDM 1306)
sending an authentication notification message to an access and mobility management function (AMF) network element, wherein the authentication notification message comprises the identifier of the UE, and (Zaus: Figs. 13-14, msg 1418 to AMF, ¶215-¶216) the authentication notification message notifies the AMF network element to perform the authentication procedure for the UE. (Zaus: Figs. 13-14, step 1420, ¶216, i.e., AMF performs the authentication)
Zaus in combination with an analogous art, Baskaran (US 20250184729 A1) further teaches: wherein a cause for which the UDM network element sends the authentication notification message to trigger the authentication procedure for the UE comprises at least one of a steering of roaming (SoR) counter (Zaus: ¶200, i.e., UDM initiates authentication/re-authentication based on SOR information) reaching a first upper limit or a UE parameter update (UPU) counter reaching a second upper limit. (Baskaran: Fig. 3, ¶46-¶59, i.e., UDM initiates authentication/re-authentication based on SOR or UPI counter information)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zaus to include UDM initiates authentication/re-authentication based on SOR or UPI counter information as taught by Baskaran with the motivation to trigger authentication/re-authentication procedure based on SOR/UPI counters (Baskaran: ¶44)
Claim 5 and 22-25 recite substantially the same features recited in claim 1 above and are rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 2, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the authentication notification message further comprises access type information, and the access type information indicates an access type applicable for the authentication procedure initiated, the access types comprise 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP) access and/or non-3GPP access. (Zaus: Fig. 1, ¶32)
As regards claim 3, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the authentication procedure trigger information indication and the authentication notification message further comprise an authentication cause for which the AUSF network element requests to trigger the network authentication procedure, and the authentication cause comprises at least one of: a counter reaching an upper limit; and a counter reaching an upper limit. (Zaus: ¶4-¶5, ¶8-¶9, i.e., the SOR counter for triggering authentication/re-authentication of the UE. See also, Baskaran: Fig. 3, ¶44-¶59)
Claim 6 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 3 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 4, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving an authentication notification acknowledgement message from the AMF network element, wherein the authentication notification acknowledgement message indicates that the AMF network element accepts to request the UE to perform the authentication procedure (Zaus: Figs. 13-14, ¶191, msg 1418 to AMF, ¶215-¶216)
As regards claim 7, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 6, further comprising: after confirming that the network authentication procedure is completed, generating a new AUSF network element key corresponding to the UE, and resetting values of the steering of roaming counter and the UE parameter update counter. (Zaus: ¶205)
As regards claim 8, Zaus (US 20200344606 A1) discloses: An authentication method, (Zaus: Figs. 13-14), comprising: receiving an authentication notification message from a unified data management (UDM) network element, wherein the authentication notification message comprises an identity of a user equipment (UE), and the authentication notification message notifies the a mobility management function (AMF) network element to perform an authentication procedure for the UE; (Zaus: Figs. 13-14, msg 1418 to AMF, ¶215-¶216)
sending an authentication request to the UE via an Non-Access Stratum (NAS) connection between the AMF network element and the UE, wherein the authentication request requests the UE to perform the authentication procedure; and (Zaus: Figs. 13-14, ¶8-¶13, ¶69, i.e., the authentication of UE by AMF using NAS signaling)
receiving an authentication response from the UE, wherein the authentication response is configured to provide feedback on an authentication request, the authentication response comprises information required to perform the authentication procedure, (Zaus: Figs. 13-14, ¶8-¶13, ¶69, i.e., the authentication of UE by AMF using NAS signaling) the authentication request is sent by the AMF network element to the UE and is configured to request the UE to perform the authentication procedure; (Zaus: Figs. 13-14, ¶8-¶13, ¶69, i.e., the authentication of UE by AMF using NAS signaling)
Zaus in combination with an analogous art, Baskaran (US 20250184729 A1) further teaches: wherein a cause for which the UDM network element triggers the authentication procedure for the UE comprises at least one of a steering of roaming (SoR) counter (Zaus: ¶200, i.e., UDM initiates authentication/re-authentication based on SOR information) reaching a first upper limit or a UE parameter update (UPU) counter reaching a second upper limit. (Baskaran: Fig. 3, ¶46-¶59, i.e., UDM initiates authentication/re-authentication based on SOR or UPI counter information)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zaus to include UDM initiates authentication/re-authentication based on SOR or UPI counter information as taught by Baskaran with the motivation to trigger authentication/re-authentication procedure based on SOR/UPI counters (Baskaran: ¶44)
Claim 26 recites substantially the same features recited in claim 8 above and is rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 9, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 8, further comprising: sending a paging message to the UE to create a non-access stratum (NAS) connection between the AMF network element and the UE: and sending the authentication request to the UE via the NAS connection. (Zaus: ¶159)
As regards claim 10, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 8, comprising: sending the authentication notification acknowledgement message to the UDM network element, wherein the authentication notification acknowledgement message indicates that the AMF network element accepts to request the UE to perform the network authentication procedure. (Zaus: Figs. 13-14, step 1420, ¶189, ¶216)
As regards claim 11, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 8, further comprising: performing security protection on the authentication request based on an NAS security context locally stored. (Zaus: ¶68)
As regards claim 12, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 11, further comprising: updating the NAS security context locally stored after the network authentication procedure is completed. (Zaus: ¶31, ¶198-¶199)
As regards claim 28, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the authentication notification message further comprises a confirmation request indication for requesting the authentication notification acknowledgement message from the AMF network element. (Zaus: Figs. 13-14, ¶191, msg 1418 to AMF, ¶215-¶216)
As regards claim 29, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the authentication notification message further comprises a confirmation request indication for requesting the authentication notification acknowledgement message from the AMF network element. (Zaus: Figs. 13-14, ¶191, msg 1418 to AMF, ¶215-¶216)
As regards claim 30, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the authentication procedure trigger information comprises at least one of a SoR protection response or a UPU protection response, the SoR protection response indicates the SoR counter reaching the first upper limit or the UPU protection response indicates the UPU counter reaching the second upper limit. (Zaus: ¶200. See also, Baskaran: Fig. 3, ¶44-¶59)
As regards claim 31, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the authentication procedure trigger information comprises at least one of a SoR protection response or a UPU protection response, the SoR protection response indicates the SoR counter reaching the first upper limit or the UPU protection response indicates the UPU counter reaching the second upper limit. (Zaus: ¶200. See also, Baskaran: Fig. 3, ¶44-¶59)
As regards claim 32, Zaus et al combination teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the SoR counter reaching the first upper limit and the UPU counter reaching the second upper limit indicated respectively by a SoR protection response and a UPU protection response comprised in authentication procedure trigger information received by the UDM network element from an authentication server function (AUSF) network element. (Zaus: ¶200. See also, Baskaran: Fig. 3, ¶44-¶59)
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 SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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 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 ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights