DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., USPN 2019/0075102.
With regard to claim 8, Kim discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media (NTCRM) including instructions that, upon execution of the instructions by one or more processors of an electronic device, are configured to cause an authentication function of a wireless network to identify a request, from a user equipment (UE) (0024-0027, 0582), for authentication to the wireless network, wherein the request includes an indication of a blockchain identity (BI) of the UE (0029, 0037), generate, based on a public key of the UE that is related to the BI and a permanent subscription key of the UE, a cryptographic challenge and an expected response to the cryptographic challenge (0102-0108, 0184-0190, 0286-0299), transmit, to the UE, an indication of the cryptographic challenge (0289-0299, 0180-0189), identify, based on the transmission of the indication of the cryptographic challenge, a received signed challenge that is a result of the UE signing the cryptographic challenge with a private key of the UE, wherein the private key is based on the BI of the UE (0289-0299, 0180-0189, 0296-0302) and verified by a smart contract verification routine executed directly via a function of the blockchain, triggering a verification of the signed cryptographic challenge against a public key of the UE stored on the blockchain (0074, 0037, 0100, 0173-0189), and transmit, to a network function of the wireless network if the signed challenge matches the expected response, an indication that the UE is authenticated to the wireless network (0307-0323).
With regard to claim 9, Kim discloses the media of claim 8, as outlined above, and further discloses the instructions are further to cause the authentication function to provide, to the UE, an indication of the expected result (0284-0299).
With regard to claims 10 and 13, Kim discloses the media of claim 8, as outlined above, and further discloses the instructions are further to cause the authentication function to provide the indication that the UE is authenticated based on receipt, from an entity of the blockchain, of an indication that the signed challenge is valid (0370-0372).
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, 12, and 14-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wane et al., USPN 2023/0396455.
With regard to claim 11, Kim discloses the media of claim 8, as outlined above, but does not disclose the network function is a security anchor function (SEAF) of the wireless network. Wane discloses a media to authenticate a user equipment using blockchain and challenge response (0002, 0019, 0022), similar to that of Kim, and further discloses the network function is a security anchor function (SEAF) of the wireless network (0079). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to implement the universal authentication using a blockchain of Kim in the SEAF system of Wane for the motivation of increasing security in such systems, as taught by Kim (0004-0005).
With regard to claim 12, Kim in view of Wane discloses the media of claim 11, as outlined above, and Wane further discloses the instructions are further to cause the authentication function to retrieve an indication of the permanent subscription key from a unified data management (UDM) function of the wireless network (0011, 0075-0079). The motivation to combine remains the same as outlined above.
With regard to claims 1, 5-7, 14, and 18-20, Kim in view of Wane discloses the media of claim 11, as outlined above, and Wane further discloses identifying, based on the provision of the indication of the verified cryptographic response, an indication of a session key related to the wireless network (0075-0079), and encode, based on the session key and for transmission to the wireless network, one or more communications (0075-0079). The motivation to combine remains the same as outlined above.
With regard to claims 2 and 15, Kim in view of Wane discloses the media of claim 11, as outlined above, and Wane further discloses the second network function is an authentication server function (AUSF) of the wireless network (0075-0079). The motivation to combine remains the same as outlined above.
With regard to claims 3, 4, 16, and 17, Kim in view of Wane discloses the media of claim 11, as outlined above, and Kim further discloses generating the public key based on the BI of the UE (0028-0032, 0228-0274).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Kim does disclose verification by a smart contract verification routine executed directly via a function of the blockchain, triggering a verification of the signed cryptographic challenge against a public key of the UE stored on the blockchain (0074, 0037, 0100, 0173-0189), as outlined above.
References Cited
Peng, USPN 11,063,770, discloses a method using a decentralized blockchain ID to create challenges to register a UE using blockchain contracts (abstract, column 83 line 64-column 84 line 32), but was not seen as the best prior art to use in forming a rejection.
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 JACOB LIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3837. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/JACOB LIPMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights