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
Claims 1 – 24 dated by 11/14/2024 are amended to originally posted claim set also dated by 11/14/2024. Claims 14 and 16 – 18 are canceled. The amended claims 1 – 13, 15 and 19 – 24 are presently pending in the application and have been examined below, of which claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 – 24 are presented in independent form.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/14/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 11/14/2024 has been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 13 objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates of claims 1, MPEP § 608.01(m). The recited claims each claim an authentication method based on the same concept without adding any new limitations.
Claim 7 discloses the method of claim 1 but implemented on different networking elements. The authentication method of claim 1 is implemented on the Access and Mobility Management Function, AMF, networking control node. The method of claim 7 is the method of claim 1 but implemented on authenticating and authorizing server, the AAA-S, network element; support in SPECS [0060 – 0061]. Implementation of a single method on different hardware cannot be considered as different methods. Accordingly, claim 7 is identified as duplicate or else is so close in content to claim 1 that they cover the same things.
Claim 13 claims another method which is a combination of limitations in claims 1, 2 and 3. Incorporation of dependent claims 2 and 3 into independent claim 1 result in better clarification of the method of claim 1 without adding anything new. Accordingly, claim 13 is identified as duplicate or else is so close in content to claim 1 that claim 13 covers the same things, despite a slight difference in wording. (See MPEP § 608.01m). One can recommend to claim a new method in one independent claim combining three claims 1, 7, 13 in one.
Similarly, claims 19 to 22 objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates of each other. Claims 19 – 22 each claim a communication device implementing method of claim 1 or claim 13. Disclosed are only different combinations of the limitations of claim 1 and/or claims 2, 3, in claim 13. One can recommend to claim a communication device in one independent claim combining the recited claims in one.
Appropriate actions are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1 – 13, 15 and 19 – 24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention (See MPEP 2173.05(a))
Claims are using numerous abbreviations without initial spelling at first appearance as required for a technical writing, that prevents clear and unambiguous understanding of the claims: AMF, AAA-S (claim 1) [0060 – 0061], EAP (claims 2, 3), NAS MM (claim 4), AIA AF (claim 5). Without spelling the recited abbreviations could not be understood unambiguously. For example, the abbreviation “AAA-S” in claim 1 could be understood as “Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Server” as used in the network and communication literature, see B. Forouzan. Data Communications and Network. 5-ed McGrow Hill 2013. However, it does not match the disclosure of the SPECS, in para. [0059] where no accounting function associated with the recited abbreviation has been identified. In contrast, according to para. [0060 - 0061] the network elements AMF (access and management unit) and AAA-S (authenticating server) are the hardware key elements of the invention performing operations of management and authentication-authorization in the network, respectively, as related to the terminal device and the analysis of respective AI functions.
Claim 1 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph, as being indefinite by claiming an operation to allow usage of an AI function without clear reference to or indication of criteria or protocol for allowing the claimed operation; support in para. [0066].
Claim 6 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph, as being indefinite for using limitation “second AI function auxiliary information”. The “first AI function auxiliary information” is disclosed in para [0008] of SPECS as an address of the AAA-S element, i.e., server, in the network. However, both the claims and the SPECS are completely silent regarding clarification of the second AI function auxiliary information despite the recited information is of key importance for the concept since the analysis for allowance to use the AI function by the AAA-S server is based on a consistency between the first and the second AI auxiliary portions of information as stated in claim 6 and in para. [0088] of SPECS. Absence of a clear disclosure of the recited limitation makes the claim indefinite.
The arguments above apply to all independent claims and the dependent claims upon their dependence upon the base claims.
In summary, the claim disclosure is misleading and unclear regarding the recited operations and limitations thus preventing clear understanding of the inventive concept.
Therefore, claims 1 – 13, 15 and 19 – 24 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Appropriate clarifications and corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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, 5 – 10, 19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Deenoo et al. (US 20230389057) (hereafter Deenoo).
As per claim 1 Deenoo discloses: (Currently Amended) A method for authenticating and authorizing an Al function in a core network (Deenoo in para. [0071-0074] discloses operations of Wireless Transmit-Receive Unit, WTRU in a Core Network, CN, configured to select, i.e., authenticate using filtering procedure, Artificial Intelligence, AI, functions, i.e., components, controlling transmission in the network [0106]), wherein the method is performed by an AMF network element, the method comprising: sending an authentication and authorization request (Deenoo in para. [0063-0064] discloses usage of Access and Mobility Management Function, AMF, network control node, i.e., network elements, for user authentication) to an AAA-S network element (Examiner note: the AAA-S network element is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0061] of SPECS as an authenticating and authorizing server; the operations of AAA-S are met in Deenoo by operations of the core network authenticating and controlling elements 106/115 as disclosed by Deenoo in [0028] and in Figs. 1A, 1C), wherein the authentication and authorization request comprises a first identifier of a specified terminal device and first Al function auxiliary information (Deenoo, in para. [0124, 0127-0128] discloses pre-configured operations of the controlling WTRU node comprising processing of respective terminal units’ identities and information for filtering of the AI functions, i.e., determining if the respective AI functions are allowed for implementations for the network devices);
and receiving an authentication and authorization response returned by the AAA-S network element, wherein the authentication and authorization response comprises an authentication and authorization result that is used to indicate whether the specified terminal device is allowed to use an Al function corresponding to the first Al function auxiliary information (Examiner note: the first auxiliary information is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0008] of SPECS as addressing information in the network) (Deenoo, in para [0120-0121] discloses processing of network identifiers comprising respective addresses by WTRU using AI components) (Deenoo, in para. [0089-0091, 0095-0096] discloses regulatory procedure of implementing the AI functions/components using AI functions filtering, i.e., allowance to use selected AI functions or component, using protocol-based preconfiguring the WTRU computing and controlling node, Deenoo, [114]).
As per claim 5 Deenoo discloses: (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the sending an authentication and authorization request to an AAA-S network element comprises: sending an AIA A_Authenticate request to an AIA AF network element, wherein the AIA A_Authenticate request comprises the first identifier and the first AI function auxiliary information (Deenoo, in para [0128-0129] discloses operations of Wireless Transmit-Receive Unit, WTRU, in a Core Network, CN, configured to use selected/filtered Artificial Intelligence, AI, functions/components identifiers of respective resources including addressing in the network [0121] ), wherein the first AI function auxiliary information comprises an address of the AAA- S network element (Examiner note: the first auxiliary information is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0008] of SPECS as addressing information in the network) (Deenoo, in para [0120-0121] discloses processing of network identifiers comprising respective addresses by WTRU using AI components) that is used to indicate the AIA AF network element to send the authentication and authorization request to the AAA-S network element according to the address (Deenoo, in para [0046] discloses user authentication within operations of WTRU, in a Core Network, CN).
As per claim 6 Deenoo discloses: (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving an authentication and authorization response returned by the AAA-S network element[[,]] comprises: receiving a third message returned by the AAA-S network element, wherein the third message comprises the authentication and authorization result (Deenoo, in para [0046] discloses user authentication within operations of WTRU, in a Core Network, CN), a second identifier and second AI function auxiliary information (Examiner note: according to the Applicant disclosure in para.[0088] of SPCS, the second AI function auxiliary information corresponds to the authentication response, i.e., the results; the limitation is met in Deenoo by respective AI component output related to an authenticating procedure of the WTRU) (Deenoo in para. [0117-0118] discloses operations of WTRU processing different outputs related to respective AI components/functions);
and determining the third message as the authentication and authorization response when the second identifier and the first identifier are consistent and the second AI function auxiliary information and the first AI function auxiliary information are consistent (Deenoo in para. [0081] discloses operations of input-output, i.e., AI component response, consistency check performed withing a machine learning considered as a subset of AI).
As per claim 7, claim 7 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claim 8, 9 and 10, claims 8, 9 and 10 each encompasses same or similar scope as claim 2, 5, and 6, respectively. Therefore, claims 8, 9 and 10 each is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claims 2, 5 and 6, respectively.
As per claim 19, claim 19 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claim 21, claim 21 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claim 23, claim 23 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2 – 4, 11 – 13, 15, 20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deenoo et al. (US 20230389057) (hereafter Deenoo) and in view of Lehtovirta et al. (US 20240073691) (hereafter Lehtovirta)
As per claim 2 Deenoo failed to explicitly disclose: usage of the Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) method for users’ identification. However. Lehtovirta discloses: (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the authentication and authorization request further comprises an EAP identity response of the specified terminal device that is used to authenticate the specified terminal device (Lehtovirta, in para. [0107] discloses application of the EAP method for user identification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deenoo, in view of teaching of Lehtovirta because they both disclose security improvement of signal processing in a communicative network system. The motivation to combine would be to modify the method of Deenoo for signal processing using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method in order to improve security of data communication in the system.
As per claim 3 Deenoo failed to explicitly disclose: identification of user equipment using EAP method.
However, Lehtovirta discloses: (Currently Amended) The method according to claim, wherein before the sending an authentication and authorization request to an AAA-S network element, the method further comprises: sending a first message to at least one candidate terminal device, wherein the first message comprises an EAP identity request and the first Al function auxiliary information; and the at least one candidate terminal device comprises the specified terminal device; and receiving a second message returned by the specified terminal device, wherein the second message comprises [[the]]an EAP identity response of the specified terminal device, the first identifier, and the first Al function auxiliary information. (Lehtovirta, in para [0133-0134] and in Figs. 5-8 discloses user equipment, i.e., terminal devices, identification procedure using multiple signal processing, i.e., first – a request, second – an identity confirmation, etc. messages processing, based on the EAP method).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deenoo, in view of teaching of Lehtovirta because they both disclose security improvement of signal processing in a communicative network system. The motivation to combine would be to modify the method of Deenoo for signal processing using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method in order to improve security of data communication in the system.
As per claim 4 Deenoo as modified discloses: (Original) The method according to claim 3, wherein the first message and the second message are NAS MM transport messages. (Deenoo, in para [0064] discloses operations of the Non-Access Stratum (NAS) signaling mobility management for the message transport protection, i.e., NAS MM transport messages).
As per claim 11 Deenoo failed to explicitly disclose: usage of the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method for users’ identification. However. Lehtovirta discloses: (Original) The method according to claim 7, wherein the method further comprises: sending a fourth message to the specified terminal device, wherein the fourth message comprises an EAP identity authentication request;
receiving a fifth message returned by the specified terminal device, wherein the fifth message comprises an EAP identity authentication response, the first identifier, and the first AI function auxiliary information; and determining, according to the EAP identity authentication response, (Examiner note: Lehtovirta discloses identification procedure of user equipment, i.e., terminal devices, using multiple signal processing, i.e., multiple outputs or multiple messages, followed by the messages processing, based on the EAP method) (Lehtovirta, in para [0133-0134] and in Figs. 5-8 discloses identification procedure of user equipment, i.e., terminal devices, using multiple signal processing, i.e., multiple outputs up to six and more messages, e.g., first message – a request, second message– an identity confirmation, etc., followed by messages processing, based on the EAP method),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deenoo, in view of teaching of Lehtovirta because they both disclose security improvement of signal processing in a communicative network system. The motivation to combine would be to modify the method of Deenoo for signal processing using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method in order to improve security of data communication in the system.
Deenoo as modified further discloses: the first identifier, and the first AI function auxiliary information (Examiner note: the first auxiliary information is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0008] of SPECS as addressing information in the network) (Deenoo, in para [0120-0121] discloses processing of network identifiers comprising respective addresses by WTRU using AI components);
whether the specified terminal device is allowed to use an AI function corresponding to the first AI function auxiliary information (Deenoo, in para. [0089-0091, 0095-0096] discloses regulatory procedure of implementing the AI functions/components using AI functions filtering, i.e., allowance to use selected AI functions or component, using protocol-based preconfiguring the WTRU computing and controlling node, Deenoo, [114]).
As per claim 12 Deenoo as modified discloses: (Original) The method according to claim 7, wherein the method further comprises: storing an association relationship among the first identifier, the first AI function auxiliary information and the authentication and authorization result (Examiner note: the first auxiliary information is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0008] of SPECS as addressing information in the network) (Deenoo, in para [0120-0121] discloses processing of network identifiers comprising respective addresses by WTRU using AI components) (Deenoo, in para [0137] discloses AI components, i.e., AI functions, having internal memory, i.e., storage of respective information including identification [0121]).
As per claim 13 Deenoo discloses: (Currently Amended) A method for authenticating and authorizing an AI function in a core network Deenoo in para. [0071-0074] discloses operations of Wireless Transmit-Receive Unit, WTRU in a Core Network, CN, configured to select, i.e., authenticate using filtering procedure, Artificial Intelligence, AI, functions, i.e., components, controlling transmission in the network [0106]), wherein the method is performed by a terminal device and comprising: receiving a first message sent by an AMF network element (Deenoo in para. [0063-0064] discloses usage of Access and Mobility Management Function, AMF, network control node, i.e., network elements, for user authentication),
Deenoo failed to explicitly disclose: usage of the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method for users’ identification.
However. Lehtovirta discloses: wherein the first message comprises an EAP identity request and first AI function auxiliary information (Lehtovirta, in para. [0107] discloses application of the EAP method for identification);
returning a second message to the AMF network element, wherein the second message comprises a first identifier of the terminal device, an EAP identity response and the first AI function auxiliary information; and the EAP identity response is used to authenticate the terminal device; and receiving a sixth message sent by the AMF network element, wherein the sixth message comprises an authentication and authorization result that is used to indicate whether [[the]]a specified terminal device is allowed to use an AI function corresponding to the first AI function auxiliary information (Lehtovirta, in para [0133-0134] and in Figs. 5-8 discloses identification procedure of user equipment, i.e., terminal devices, using multiple signal processing, i.e., multiple outputs or six and more messages, e.g., first message – a request, second message– an identity confirmation, etc., followed by messages processing, based on the EAP method).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deenoo, in view of teaching of Lehtovirta because they both disclose security improvement of signal processing in a communicative network system. The motivation to combine would be to modify the method of Deenoo for signal processing using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method in order to improve security of data communication in the system.
As per claim 15 Deenoo as modified discloses:(Original) The method according to claim 13, wherein the method further comprises: receiving a fourth message sent by an AAA-S network element (Examiner note: the AAA-S network element is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0061] of SPECS as an authenticating and authorizing server; the operations of AAA-S are met in Deenoo by operations of the core network authenticating and controlling elements 106/115 as disclosed by Deenoo in [0028] and in Figs. 1A, 1C),
wherein the fourth message comprises an EAP identity authentication request, the first identifier (Lehtovirta, in para. [0107] discloses application of the EAP method for identification);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deenoo, in view of teaching of Lehtovirta because they both disclose security improvement of signal processing in a communicative network system. The motivation to combine would be to modify the method of Deenoo for signal processing using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method in order to improve security of data communication in the system.
Deenoo as modified further discloses: and the first AI function auxiliary information (Examiner note: the first auxiliary information is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0008] of SPECS as addressing information in the network) (Deenoo, in para [0120-0121] discloses processing of network identifiers comprising respective addresses by WTRU using AI components); and returning a fifth message to the AAA-S network element,
wherein the fifth message comprises an EAP identity authentication response, the first identifier and the first AI function auxiliary information (Examiner note: the first auxiliary information is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0008] of SPECS as addressing information in the network) (Deenoo, in para [0120-0121] discloses processing of network identifiers comprising respective addresses by WTRU using AI components);
and the EAP identity authentication response is used to determine whether the terminal device is allowed to use the AI function corresponding to the first AI function auxiliary information (Deenoo, in para. [0089-0091, 0095-0096] discloses regulatory procedure of implementing the AI functions/components using AI functions filtering, i.e., allowance to use selected AI functions or component, using protocol-based preconfiguring the WTRU computing and controlling node, Deenoo, [114])
As per claims 20, 22, and 24 claims 20, 22 and 24 each encompasses same or similar scope as claim 13. Therefore, claims 20, 22 and 24 each is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Li US_20220038349, Rohini US_12563394, Suh US_20240080662, Ying US_20220014942, Long US_20250193663, Luo US_20250142398, Tahvili US_20240241817, Wang US_20250016547, Salkintzis US_20250008325.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR IVANOVICH GAVRILENKO whose telephone number is (313)446-6530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VLADIMIR I GAVRILENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 2431