Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Art Rejection
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-4, 7-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0020351, in view of Nair, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0127285.
Per claims 1 and 8, Lee discloses a computer implemented method, comprising:
a) receiving, by a device (e.g., base station), from a first user equipment (UE), and regardless of radio access technologies utilized (see par 0044), a first core network attach request with a first concealed subscriber identifier PMSI (see par 0040);
b) providing, by the device, the first core network attach request with the first concealed subscriber identifier to a first core network HHS (see par 0040);
c) providing, by the device, a first authentication message received from the core network to the first UE (see par 0041, 0058); and
e) enabling, by the device and based on the first authentication message, the first UE to attach to the first core network via an untrusted access network (see par 0042).
Lee does not explicitly teach that the first authentication message comprise an authorization success message. Such use of authorization success message as part of authentication process is known in the art as disclosed by Nair (see Nair, par 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such authorization success message in Lee because it would have enabled the UE to attach to the first core network (see Nair, par 0041).
Per claim 2, Lee teaches that the first concealed subscriber identifier is a subscriber concealed identifier associated with a subscriber of the first UE (see par 0005).
Per claim 3, Lee teaches receiving a plurality of attach requests from different UEs including a second request with a second concealed subscriber identifier from a second UE (see par 0044, 0058). Lee does not teach sending an authorization reject message with an error code to the second UE when the core network does not approve the attach request (see par 0058). However, such use of error code is also known in the art as disclosed by Nair. Particularly, Nair teaches receiving and storing an error code provided by the core network along with a rejection message (see Nair, par 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such error code in Lee because it would have enabled informing the UE a rejection of the attach request.
Per claim 4, Nair also teaches using the error code in a second attach attempt by the second UE (see par 0043).
Per claim 7, Nair teaches that the device comprises an evolved packet data gateway and the UE is a standalone capable device (see par 0003).
Per claim 14, Lee teaches that the authentication/authorization message is received from an authorization server function of the first core network (see par 0041).
Claims 15-16 are similar in scope as that of claims 1-4 and 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 5-6, 9-13 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Viet Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-3977. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. The Group general information number is 571-272-2400. The Group fax number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Emmanuel Moise, can be reached at 571-272-3865.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Viet D Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
7/29/26
Prosecution Insights