DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2026-08-12 has been entered and fully considered.
In light of applicant’s amendment, filed 2026-08-12, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-19, filed 2026-08-12, with respect to the rejection of claims 41, 43, 48, 62, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 because the operations allegedly cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, applicant asserts that the claimed “operations involve the exchange and use of cryptographic authentication information among specific network entities” and that a “human cannot mentally receive, derive, transmit, and apply cryptographic keys between network entities in the manner recited by the claim”. The Examiner notes, however, that the claimed invention does not require “cryptographic” keys; rather, the claims merely recite an “application key”, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of an application key includes non-cryptographic keys such as a code word. Further, the claimed invention does not require the actual derivation of the key; rather, the claims merely require “receiving an application key” that was derived by another entity. As for the “specific network entities” applicant argues is claimed, the Examiner notes that the claims do not require any particular structure or function of these entities that would distinguish them from generic computers performing the mental process, which would still then recite a mental process; See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses using a general-purpose computer for receiving a code word and determining whether the received code word is correct. This not only is trivial to be performed in a human mind, but has commonly been performed, such as by receiving and verifying a password to allow entry into a speakeasy.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 2 because the claims integrate a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, applicant argues that the Specification explains that the present invention improves upon conventional technology because “part of functions of the first entity can be realized through the first proxy entity, thereby reducing the load of the first entity and improving the efficiency of the first entity,” and “the user equipment realizes the authorization and authentication with one or more first entities through the unified first proxy entity, which also reduces the complexity of authentication of the user equipment and improves the efficiency of the user equipment”, and that claim 41 integrates this improvement by reciting that an Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AKMA) Anchor Function (AAnF) entity provides an application key to an authentication proxy (AP) entity, the AP entity performs “user equipment (UE) authentication according to the application key,” and “the UE communicates with the target entity through the AP entity”. The Examiner respectfully submits, however, that although the Specification describes an improvement upon conventional technology, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For improving the functioning of a computer, the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement described in the Specification; See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). In this instance, the Examiner notes that nothing in the claims necessarily reduces the load of an entity or reduces the complexity of authentication of the user equipment. Note for example, that the claims do not require any “unified” proxy, nor does it necessarily preclude or replace a conventional authentication or any burden from a convention system. Instead, the claims merely require receiving a key and performing a non-descript “authentication” using the received key, which does not necessarily yield any of the improvements recited in the specification.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims recite “significantly more” under Step 2B, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant first argues that the claim recitations do not merely invoke a generic computer to carry out authentication, but instead implement a particular network architecture. The Examiner notes, however, that even though the claims recite particular network architecture elements, the elements themselves are doing two basic steps – 1) receiving a key and 2) performing a non-descript authentication (e.g. comparing if a password matches), which the Examiner has noted are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities by computers.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is not directed to merely using a generic computer as a tool, and that, instead, it (allegedly) requires specific interactions among specialized network components. The Examiner notes, however, that the “specific interactions” is simply receiving a value and performing a non-descript authentication, such as by making a comparison, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by computers.
The Examiner recommends significant amendment to the claimed invention to integrate the disclosed solution into a practical application. For example, the claims could limit the derivation and structure of the key to a cryptographic key, could clarify the process of authentication (as of right now, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes simply making a random decision), could clarify how a communication authority is determined from the key (as, again, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes simply making a random decision), could define the structure and/or function of the various network elements, and could actually do something with the authentication result. As is, the claims are far from the realm of a practical application and instead encompasses trivial and generic ideas such as merely receiving and verifying that a password is correct, but without even an enforcement action like would be done in a speakeasy.
Thus, since the claims are directed towards an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or being significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 20-23, filed 2026-08-12, with respect to the rejection of claims 41, 43, 48, 62, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Gupta fails to disclose Limitation (a): “receiving an application key sent by an Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AKMA) Anchor Function (AAnF) entity”; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. That is, Applicant alleges that Gupta is silent as to any authentication proxy entity receiving a key corresponding to an Application Server (AS). The Examiner notes, however, that limitation (a) is silent regarding an AS (this is recited in limitation b, not limitation a). Instead, the claim merely recites receiving an application key sent by another entity. Note that the claimed “Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AKMA) Anchor Function (AAnF) entity” has no explicitly required structure or function that distinguishes it from the key material sent from the hAAnF to the vAAnF and then again to the AF, such as recited in Gupta.
Applicant then argues that Gupta fails to disclose Limitation (b): “wherein the application key is derived by the AAnF entity according to a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) of a target entity, wherein the target entity is in one or more application servers (ASs)”; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that in Gupta, the AF obtains a key generated by the AAnF based on the AF’s FQDN, whereas in amended claim 41, the AP obtains an application key generated by the AAnF based on the AS’s FQDN, wherein the AS is a server connected to the AF. The Examiner notes, however, that the claim does not require that the AS be a server connected to the AF, nor does it provide any structure or function to the AS to distinguish it from the AF of Gupta.
Applicant further argues that Gupta fails to disclose Limitation (c): “performing user equipment (UE) authentication according to the application key”; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Applicant argues that in Gupta, the AUSF generates KAKMA and is unrelated to any authentication proxy (AP); however, the Examiner notes that the claims provide no structural or functional limitations that distinguish the claimed “authentication proxy (AP)” from the structure and function of the AUSF of Gupta.
Applicant finally argues that Gupta fails to disclose Limitation (d): “wherein the UE communicates with the target entity through the AP entity”; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that in Gupta, the UE communicates directly with the AF, whereas in claim 41, communication between the UE and the AS is implemented via the AP. The Examiner notes; however, that: 1) the claims do not require all messages from the UE to the target to pass through the AP, only that the communication itself somehow be through the AP (e.g., the claims encompass AP performing authentication of the UE or key generation procedure for establishing direct communication) and 2) that in Gupta, the UE relies on the AUSF for establishing the communication with the AF; See e.g., Fig. 1. Since, as previously noted, the claims provide no structural or functional limitations that distinguish the claimed “authentication proxy (AP)” from the structure and function of the AUSF of Gupta, the disclosure of Gupta anticipates this limitation as well.
Thus, Gupta anticipates the generically claimed acts of an authentication proxy receiving a key and performing authentication according to the key, and the Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection is proper.
Restriction/Election By Original Presentation
Newly submitted claims 69-77 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed. Restriction and election by original presentation is required under 35 U.S.C. 121, and the claims for election by original presentation are grouped as following (continuing using the Invention numbering in the Restriction mailed 2026-01-30):
Claims 41, 43, 48, 62, and 66, drawn to performing authentication with an application key and determining a first communication authority according to the application key (as per originally elected Invention IV).
Claims 41 and 69, drawn to sending a subscriber identity.
Claims 41 and 70, drawn to receiving a data element of a target entity from a UE.
Claims 41 and 71-72, drawn to receiving a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI).
Claims 41 and 73, drawn to acquiring a key expiration time.
Claims 74-77, drawn to an AKMA Anchor Function (AAnF) entity that receives information and sends an application key to an AP entity.
*For convenience and clarity, the claim sets for the inventions listed supra are provided such that an election of a single invention will comply with the election requirements of the various permutations of restricted subject matter discussed infra. The claims that are listed in multiple inventions are either linking claims or encompass subject matter that is not restricted from the identified restricted subject matter infra; thus, they are included in each relevant invention.
Linking claims:
Claim 41 links inventions IV and XIV-XVIII.
The restriction requirement among the linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of the linking claims, claim 41.
Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim(s), the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971); See also MPEP § 804.01.
Inventions IV and XIV-XVII are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable; See MPEP § 806.05(d). In the instant case, subcombination:
IV has separate utility such as securely authenticating UE and ensuring the valid authority is used for the communication.
XIV has separate utility such as ensuring the subscriber identity is transmitted through a trusted party.
XV has separate utility such as ensuring the target entity is properly identified by the UE.
XVI has separate utility such as providing the UE with a globally unique permanent ID.
XVII has separate utility such as improving security with a key expiration.
XVIII has separate utility such as performing key derivation for an authentication proxy.
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention (Invention IV), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 69-77 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 41, 43, 48, 62, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite authenticating according to an application key, which is a form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of authenticating according to an application key, which is a form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that clam features of: authenticating according to an application key do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead of a practical application, the claim features of authenticating according to an application key merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g. authentication proxy entity, user equipment, application servers, processor, and memory) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g. perform authentication, communicate, send data, receive data, determine an authority, ...) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed application key, Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN), A-KID, and identifier are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the claims are merely directed towards authenticating according to an application key, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality. For example, that the “UE communicates with the target entity” is merely receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, “performing user equipment (UE) authentication” is merely a form of performing calculation, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Further note that the abstract idea of authenticating according to an application key to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing environment, e.g. a guard that checks an ID according to the domain of the ID issuer.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The dependent claims likewise incorporate the deficiencies of a claim upon which they ultimately depend and are also directed to non-patent-eligible subject matter.
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)(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 41, 43, 48, 62, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20220210636-A1, hereinafter “Gupta”).
With respect to independent claim 41, Gupta discloses a communication method, applied to an authentication proxy (AP) entity, comprising:
receiving an application key sent by an Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AKMA) Anchor Function (AAnF) entity {paras. 0117-0119 and 0156-0162: “the hAAnF generates KAF key material from KAKMA and AF-Identity (e.g., FQDN), and provides to vAAnF” and “vAAnF receives KAF and key lifetime, the vAAnF provides the same to AF” and also this “can be acquired by the AUSF”}, wherein the application key is derived by the AAnF entity according to a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) of a target entity {paras. 0117-0119 and 0156-0162: “the hAAnF generates KAF key material from KAKMA and AF-Identity (e.g., FQDN)”}, wherein the target entity is in one or more application servers (ASs) {para. 0079: the AF is hosted on “the AF server (200C)”}.
performing user equipment (UE) authentication according to the application key {para. 0079: “AKMA controller (140) establishes communication with an application function (AF) server using the AKMA application key (KAF). Further, the UE (100) performs a primary authentication with an authentication server function (AUSF) (200A)”}, wherein the UE communicates with the target entity through the AP entity {paras. 0073 and 0081, and Fig. 1: “the UE (100) is moving from a home network to a roaming network and wants to communicate with an application function (AF) to consume services”, the communication established through “AUSF server (200A)”}.
With respect to dependent claim 43, Gupta sending at least one of an AKMA Key Identifier (A-KID) of the UE or the FQDN of the target entity to the AAnF entity {paras. 0087 and 0119-0121: “the AUSF (200A) registers the KAKMA, the A-KID, and subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) into an AKMA anchor function (AAnF) server (200B1 or 200 B2)”}.
With respect to dependent claim 48, Gupta discloses determining a first communication authority according to the application key received from the AAnF entity {paras. 0137-0147: “the AUSF (200A) determines that the generated AKMA keys need to be propagated to the Visited-PLMN based on indication from UDM”}, wherein the first communication authority comprises one or more of: the UE having an access authority to the target entity; the UE having an access authority to the AP entity; the AP entity having a proxy authority to the target entity; or the target entity having an acquisition authority to an identity of a subscriber of the UE {paras. 0137-0147: “AUSF (200A) selects the visited and the home AAnF instances (hAAnF and the vAAnF (200B2)) to serve the UE (100)”}.
With respect to claims 62 and 66, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier in this section with respect to claim 41 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 62 and 66; therefore, claims 62 and 66 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 41.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Kevin Bechtel whose telephone number is 571-270-5436. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, William (“Bill”) Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/Kevin Bechtel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights