Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 10/24/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0078696 A1 in view of Zhou et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0160360 A1.
Claim 1
Saxena discloses a method (fig. 1-6 depicts for controlling equipment access to slices in a 5G network) of managing a user equipment (UE) identity (UE identity in fig. 3 and see UE in fig. 4-5) in a telecommunications network (5G network in fig. 1-4), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
524
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving a registration request at a first network node (E-AMF 302 in fig. 4, see AMF in fig. 2-3 as well) of the telecommunications network (404 in fig 4, a registration request in par. 0058), the registration request including an equipment identifier corresponding to a UE transmitting the registration request (SUPI obtained from UE in par. 0058, par. 0014 for UE identity; and see MPEP 2111);
prior to performing an authentication sub-procedure:
transmitting a UE identity check request to a second network node (local EIR or E-5G-EIR NF in fig. 4 connecting to fig. 2-3) of the telecommunications network (checks the SUPI associated PEI in par. 0059; see fig. 3 and par. 0042, E-AMF for transmitting Check_IMEI request to E-5G-EIR NF 306), the UE identity check request including the equipment identifier (SUPI and PEI in par. 0059 and par. 0041, Check_IMIE request may include SUPI and PEI associated with the requesting UE); and
in response to a determination that the UE identity check response indicates that the UE is invalid (par. 0059 and 418-420-422-424-426 in fig. 4, if SUPI/PEI does not match), rejecting the registration request without performing the authentication sub-procedure (par. 0059 and fig. 4, registration request can be rejected).
Although Saxena does not explicitly show: “receiving a UE identity check response from the second network node”, the claim limitation is considered obvious by the following rationales.
In fact, claim does not specifically define what are involved in the response. See MPEP 2111. Although Saxena does not explicitly show the response from the second network node for the UE identity check, fig. 2B of Saxena explains that 5G-EIR NF can respond the EquipmentIdentityCheck request with an allow/not-allow network attachment request (par. 0040). This teaching of Saxena could have rendered the addressing claim limitation obvious. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Zhou teaches EIR for receiving ME equipment identifier checking request message and transmitting ME equipment identifier checking response message (407-408 in fig. 4-2 and fig. 4-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
588
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 controlling equipment access to slices in a 5G network of Saxena by providing equipment identifier checking as taught in Zhou. Such a modification would have provided a wireless network to check the identity of a user equipment UE and not to allow the illegal UE for accessing the wireless network so that the wireless network could provide wireless services only to the trusted users as suggested in par. 0002-0009 of Zhou.
Claim 2
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a determination that the UE identity check response indicates that the UE is valid (Zhou, 408 in fig. 4-2), performing with the authentication sub-procedure (Zhou, steps 411-416 in fig. 4-2 can be reasonably interpreted as authentication sub-procedure; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 3
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, by the second network node:
checking the equipment identifier against a blacklist in a database (Saxena, see denylist, i.e., blacklist in par. 0014, of prohibited devices identified by PEI are maintained in a primary EIR database 205 in fig. 2B in par. 0040 for connecting to fig. 4 and par. 0059 to Check-IMEI that is comparing the SUPI and PEI of UE to the denylist); and
generating the UE identity check response to include information indicating a result of the checking (Saxena, par. 0040, 5G-EIR-NF can respond to the request with an allow/not-allow network attachment request; hence, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 4
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the database is internal to the second network node (Saxena, local EIR with database in fig. 4 and 5G-EIR NF with primary EIR database 205 in fig. 2B; therefore, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement).
Claim 5
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the equipment identifier is a privacy-preserving identifier (Saxena, par. 0040 & 0059 in view of fig. 2-4; a privacy-preserving identifier could be reasonably interpreted as SUPI or PEI or IMEI; see MPEP 2111; accordingly, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 6
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the equipment identifier is a temporary identifier (Zhou, GTP/PMIP session in 414 of fig. 4-2 could be considered reasonably as temporary identifier in par. 0080 unless claim further specifically define what are required to be the temporary identifier; see MPEP 2111 and evidence for temporary ID in par. 0098 of Baek et al. Pub. No.: US 2021/0329583 A1).
Claim 7
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first network node is associated with an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) of the telecommunications network (Saxena, AMF in fig. 2A-B and e-AMF in fig. 4; hence, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 8
Saxena discloses a telecommunications network (wireless network in fig. 1-6) comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
410
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at least one processor (processors 604 in fig. 6) in communication with a first network node (AMF in fig. 2-4) of the telecommunications network; and
a first memory (main memory 606 or ROM 608 or storage 610 in fig. 6) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see steps or instructions performing in fig. 4-5), cause the first network node to:
PNG
media_image4.png
494
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
receive a registration request (404 in fig 4, a registration request in par. 0058), the registration request including an equipment identifier corresponding to a UE transmitting the registration request SUPI obtained from UE in par. 0058, par. 0014 for UE identity),
prior to performing an authentication sub-procedure:
transmit a UE identity check request to a second network node (local EIR or E-5G-EIR NF in fig. 4 connecting to fig. 2-3) of the telecommunications network (checks the SUPI associated PEI in par. 0059; see fig. 3 and par. 0042, E-AMF for transmitting Check_IMEI request to E-5G-EIR NF 306), the UE identity check request including the equipment identifier (SUPI and PEI in par. 0059 and par. 0041, Check_IMIE request may include SUPI and PEI associated with the requesting UE), and
in response to a determination that the UE identity check response indicates that the UE is invalid (par. 0059 and 418-420-422-424-426 in fig. 4, if SUPI/PEI does not match), reject the registration request without performing the authentication sub-procedure (par. 0059 and fig. 4, registration request can be rejected).
Although Saxena does not explicitly show: “receive a UE identity check response from the second network node”, the claim limitation is considered obvious by the following rationales.
In fact, claim does not specifically define what are involved in the response. See MPEP 2111. Although Saxena does not explicitly show the response from the second network node for the UE identity check, fig. 2B of Saxena explains that 5G-EIR NF can respond the EquipmentIdentityCheck request with an allow/not-allow network attachment request (par. 0040). This teaching of Saxena could have rendered the addressing claim limitation obvious. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Zhou teaches EIR for receiving ME equipment identifier checking request message and transmitting ME equipment identifier checking response message (407-408 in fig. 4-2 and fig. 4-3).
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 controlling equipment access to slices in a 5G network of Saxena by providing equipment identifier checking as taught in Zhou. Such a modification would have provided a wireless network to check the identity of a user equipment UE and not to allow the illegal UE for accessing the wireless network so that the wireless network could provide wireless services only to the trusted users as suggested in par. 0002-0009 of Zhou.
Claim 9
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the network of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the first network node to:
in response to a determination that the UE identity check response indicates that the UE is valid (Zhou, 408 in fig. 4-2), perform with the authentication sub-procedure (Zhou, steps 411-416 in fig. 4-2 can be reasonably interpreted as authentication sub-procedure; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 10
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the network of claim 8, further comprising
at least one additional processor in communication with the second network node; and
a second memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one additional processor, cause the second network node to:
check the equipment identifier against a blacklist in a database (Saxena, see denylist, i.e., blacklist in par. 0014, of prohibited devices identified by PEI are maintained in a primary EIR database 205 in fig. 2B in par. 0040 for connecting to fig. 4 and par. 0059 to Check-IMEI that is comparing the SUPI and PEI of UE to the denylist); and
generate the UE identity check response to include information indicating a result of the checking (Saxena, par. 0040, 5G-EIR-NF can respond to the request with an allow/not-allow network attachment request; hence, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 11
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the network of claim 10, wherein the database is internal to the second network node (Saxena, local EIR with database in fig. 4 and 5G-EIR NF with primary EIR database 205 in fig. 2B; therefore, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement).
Claim 12
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the network of claim 8, wherein the equipment identifier is a privacy-preserving identifier (Saxena, par. 0040 & 0059 in view of fig. 2-4; a privacy-preserving identifier could be reasonably interpreted as SUPI or PEI or IMEI; see MPEP 2111; accordingly, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 13
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the network of claim 8, wherein the equipment identifier is a temporary identifier (Zhou, GTP/PMIP session in 414 of fig. 4-2 could be considered reasonably as temporary identifier in par. 0080 unless claim further specifically define what are required to be the temporary identifier; see MPEP 2111 and evidence for temporary ID in par. 0098 of Baek et al. Pub. No.: US 2021/0329583 A1).
Claim 14
Saxena, in view of Zhou, discloses the network of claim 8, wherein the first network node is associated with an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) of the telecommunications network (Saxena, AMF in fig. 2A-B and e-AMF in fig. 4; hence, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 15-20
Claims 15-20 are computer product claims corresponding to method claims 1-3 and 5-7. All of the limitations of claims 15-20 are found reciting for the same scopes of the respective limitations of claims 1-3 and 5-7. Accordingly, claims 15-20 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7 respectively set forth above.
Contact Information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights