DETAILED ACTION
Claims 14, 21-42, 44 and 45 have been cancelled in a preliminary amendment.
Claims 1-13, 15-20, and 43 have been examined.
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 .
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.
Priority
The current application is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2022/099603, with International Filing Date: 06/17/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 and 01/21/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-10, 13, 15-18, 20, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20230308432 A1 to Smolny et al., hereinafter Smolny.
Regarding claim 1, Smolny teaches a method for selecting an authentication method, which is performed by an edge server (paragraph 106), comprising:
receiving an authentication method request sent by a terminal, the authentication method request being configured to request to select any one authentication method from n authentication methods (paragraph 8, “a first authentication method” and “a second authentication method”, paragraphs 12 and 16, “The options of authentication methods may offer different implementation choices”, paragraphs 49, 50, 75, and 76, “the second authentication method differs from the first authentication method”, and paragraphs 86, and 87);
and sending a first response message to the terminal in response to the authentication method request, the first response message comprising a target authentication method selected from the n authentication methods, n being a positive integer (paragraph 12, “confirm a correctness of the first data as a first identity pass key using the first authentication method to confirm a correctness of the second data as a second identity pass key using the second authentication method, wherein the first identity pass key is used as input to the second authentication method, and wherein the second authentication method differs from the first authentication method, and executing the service, upon having received confirmation of both the first identity pass key and the second identity pass key”, and paragraphs 86, and 87).
Regarding claim 2, Smolny teaches wherein the authentication method request comprises at least one of: an authentication method identifier, the authentication method identifier indicating an authentication method supported by the terminal; a key type supported by the terminal; or a key identifier (paragraphs 12, 50, 75-77, 86 and 87).
Regarding claim 3, Smolny teaches wherein a type of the authentication method comprises at least one of: an authentication method based on authentication and key management for applications (AKMA) with transport layer security (TLS); or an authentication method based on general bootstrapping architecture (GBA) with TLS (Figure 3, and paragraphs 20, 24, 34, 41, 54, 80, 82, and 83).
Regarding claim 4, Smolny teaches determining the target authentication method from the n authentication methods based on an authentication method supported by the edge server and an authentication selection policy (paragraph 12, “confirm a correctness of the first data as a first identity pass key using the first authentication method to confirm a correctness of the second data as a second identity pass key using the second authentication method, wherein the first identity pass key is used as input to the second authentication method, and wherein the second authentication method differs from the first authentication method, and executing the service, upon having received confirmation of both the first identity pass key and the second identity pass key”, and paragraphs 75, 76, 86, and 87).
Regarding claim 5, Smolny teaches wherein determining the target authentication method from the n authentication methods based on the authentication method supported by the edge server and the authentication selection policy comprises: determining m authentication methods among the n authentication methods based on a key type and the authentication method supported by the edge server, the m authentication methods matching the key type and the authentication method supported by the edge server, m being a positive integer not greater than n (paragraph 12, “confirm a correctness of the first data as a first identity pass key using the first authentication method to confirm a correctness of the second data as a second identity pass key using the second authentication method, wherein the first identity pass key is used as input to the second authentication method, and wherein the second authentication method differs from the first authentication method, and executing the service, upon having received confirmation of both the first identity pass key and the second identity pass key”, and paragraphs 75, 76, 86, and 87);
and determining, based on the authentication selection policy, the authentication method with a highest priority among the matched m authentication methods as the target authentication method (paragraphs 12, 75-77, 86 and 87).
Regarding claim 6, Smolny teaches wherein the target authentication method is a TLS authentication method based on an operator certificate (paragraphs 16, 19, 23, 42, 51, and 75), and the method further comprises:
sending a key acquisition request to a core network device, the key acquisition request comprising a key identifier, an application function identifier of the edge server and a requested key type, and the key acquisition request being configured to authorize a key based on the key identifier, the application function identifier and the key type (paragraphs 12, 50, 75-77, 86 and 87).
Regarding claim 7, Smolny teaches receiving a third response message sent by the core network device, the third response message comprising the key and indicating that the key is authorized successfully (paragraphs 12, 24, 41, 74, 75-77, and 83-87).
Regarding claim 8, Smolny teaches receiving a fourth response message sent by the core network device, the fourth response message not comprising the key and indicating that the key is not authorized successfully (paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 9, Smolny teaches wherein the key is not authorized successfully and there exists unused other authentication methods than the target authentication method among the n authentication methods, and the method further comprises: determining x authentication methods among the other authentication methods based on a key type and the authentication method supported by the edge server, the x authentication methods matching the key type and the authentication method supported by the edge server, and x being a positive integer less than n; re-determining, based on the authentication selection policy, the authentication method with a highest priority among the matched x authentication methods as the target authentication method (paragraphs 12, 50, 75-77, 86 and 87);
and re-performing the step of sending the key acquisition request to the core network device in the case where the target authentication method is the TLS authentication method based on the operator certificate (Figure 3, and paragraphs 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 34, 41, 42, 51, 54, 80, 82, and 83).
Regarding claim 10, Smolny teaches wherein the authentication method request does not comprise a key identifier and the target authentication method selected by the edge server is a TLS authentication method based on an operator certificate, and the method further comprises: sending an authentication material request to the terminal, the authentication material request being configured to request the key identifier; and receiving a second response message sent by the terminal, the second response message comprising a key identifier corresponding to the TLS authentication method (paragraphs 12, 20, 24, 34, 41, 50, 54, 75-77, 80, 82, 83, 86, and 87).
Regarding claim 13, Smolny teaches wherein the terminal is an edge enabler client (EEC), and the edge server is an edge configuration server (ECS) or an edge enabler server (EES) (paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 15, Smolny teaches a method for selecting an authentication method, which is performed by a terminal, comprising:
sending an authentication method request to an edge server, the authentication method request being configured to request the edge server to select any one authentication method from n authentication methods (paragraph 8, “a first authentication method” and “a second authentication method”, paragraphs 12 and 16, “The options of authentication methods may offer different implementation choices”, paragraphs 49, 50, 75, and 76, “the second authentication method differs from the first authentication method”, and paragraphs 86, and 87);
and receiving a first response message sent by the edge server, the first response message comprising a target authentication method selected from the n authentication methods, and the first response message being sent in response to the authentication method request, n being a positive integer (paragraph 12, “confirm a correctness of the first data as a first identity pass key using the first authentication method to confirm a correctness of the second data as a second identity pass key using the second authentication method, wherein the first identity pass key is used as input to the second authentication method, and wherein the second authentication method differs from the first authentication method, and executing the service, upon having received confirmation of both the first identity pass key and the second identity pass key”, and paragraphs 86, and 87).
Regarding claim 16, Smolny teaches wherein the authentication method request comprises at least one of: an authentication method identifier, the authentication method identifier indicating an authentication method supported by the terminal; a key type supported by the terminal; or a key identifier (paragraphs 12, 50, 75-77, 86 and 87).
Regarding claim 17, Smolny teaches wherein a type of the authentication method comprises at least one of: an authentication method based on AKMA with TLS; or an authentication method based on GBA with TLS (Figure 3, and paragraphs 20, 24, 34, 41, 54, 80, 82, and 83).
Regarding claim 18, Smolny teaches wherein the authentication method request does not comprise a key identifier and the target authentication method selected by the edge server is a TLS authentication method based on an operator certificate, and the method further comprises: receiving an authentication material request sent by the edge server, the authentication material request being configured to request the key identifier; and sending a second response message to the edge server in response to the authentication material request, the second response message comprising a key identifier corresponding to the TLS authentication method (paragraphs 12, 20, 24, 34, 41, 50, 54, 75-77, 80, 82, 83, 86, and 87).
Regarding claim 20, Smolny teaches wherein the terminal is an edge enabler client (EEC), and the edge server is an edge configuration server (ECS) or an edge enabler server (EES) (paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 43, Smolny discloses an edge server (paragraph 106), comprising:
a processor; a transceiver coupled to the processor (Figure 5, paragraph 86),
and a memory having stored thereon executable instructions that, when be loaded and executed by the processor (Figure 5, paragraph 86), cause the edge server to implement actions comprising:
receiving an authentication method request sent by a terminal, the authentication method request being configured to request to select any one authentication method from n authentication methods (paragraph 8, “a first authentication method” and “a second authentication method”, paragraphs 12 and 16, “The options of authentication methods may offer different implementation choices”, paragraphs 49, 50, 75, and 76, “the second authentication method differs from the first authentication method”, and paragraphs 86, and 87);
and sending a first response message to the terminal in response to the authentication method request, the first response message comprising a target authentication method selected from the n authentication methods, n being a positive integer (paragraph 12, “confirm a correctness of the first data as a first identity pass key using the first authentication method to confirm a correctness of the second data as a second identity pass key using the second authentication method, wherein the first identity pass key is used as input to the second authentication method, and wherein the second authentication method differs from the first authentication method, and executing the service, upon having received confirmation of both the first identity pass key and the second identity pass key”, and paragraphs 86, and 87).
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 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 11, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smolny as applied to independent claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20210289001 A1 to Wilson et al., hereinafter Wilson.
Smolny teaches the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Smolny is not relied upon to tach the claim limitations within claims 11, 12, and 19 pertaining to “an error message”. Wilson teaches said claim limitations, as cited below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wilson with the teachings of Smolny so as to provide notification in the event that an unauthorized access attempt is made, that access will not be permitted (Wilson – paragraph 316).
The obviousness to combine for claim 11 also pertains to claims 12 and 19.
In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements/steps would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. It is well established that in evaluating references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding claim 11, Wilson teaches wherein the key is not authorized successfully and there exists no unused other authentication methods than the target authentication method among the n authentication methods, and the method further comprises: sending an error message to the terminal (paragraph 316).
Regarding claim 12, Wilson teaches wherein the edge server does not support an authentication method supported by the terminal, and the method further comprises: sending an error message to the terminal (paragraph 316).
Regarding claim 19, Wilson teaches wherein the edge server does not support an authentication method supported by the terminal, and the method further comprises: receiving an error message sent by the edge server (paragraph 316).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on form PTO-892 are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to authentication between a device and a server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH L AVERY whose telephone number is (571)272-8627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am -5:00pm.
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 at 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 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.
/JEREMIAH L AVERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights