DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 7/10/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13-14 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10 and 13-14 have been amended.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 7/10/2024: Applicant has amended the specification, and some of the corresponding objections have been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims, and the objections and corresponding 35 USC § 112 rejections and 35 USC § 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims, and the corresponding rejections have been altered to address the amended language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with regards to claim 1:
“Specifically, the Office Action contends that Shi at FIG. 3 and [0165] teach the first "receiving" step (and first overall step) of Applicant's claim. (Office Action, p.7.) However, paragraph [0165] of Shi discloses "direct communication request from remote WTRU to WTRU relay includes subscription concealed identifier (SUCI))[.]" (Shi, [0165].) A SUCI is not key data. Rather, SUCI is merely an identifier of a subscription.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner is not stating that the SUCI represents “key data”. The SUCI, is clearly an identifier, however, the language of claim 1 reads “comprising information indicative of key data associated with the further WTRU”, the language “indicative of key data” is not the same as “key data”. During patent examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01 for case law pertinent to claim analysis. In this case, the examiner is giving the term “indicative of key data” the broadest reasonable interpretation. The SUCI is “indicative of key data” because it identifies a subscriber and is used to initiate an authentication procedure through which the “key data” is acquired. The claim does not require that the “information indicative of key data” explicitly contain “key data”.
Applicant further argues with regards to claim 1:
“Per the Office Action, Shi at paragraphs [0088], FIG. 3, and paragraphs [0019] and [0166] teach the first "transmitting" step (and second overall step) of Applicant's claim 1. While [0088] does mention that the remote WTRU may be authorized access to a network, paragraph [0088] does not disclose transmitting, to a first network, a request for access for the further WTRU to a further network, the request for access comprising information indicative of the key data. Moreover, [0088] makes no mention of a method implemented by a WTRU comprising transmitting a request, that the request is sent to a first network, that the request is for access to a further network, and that the request comprises information indicative of key data. Similarly, paragraph [0166] fails to teach [[of]] an authentication and authorization of a remote WTRU associated with key data. Rather, paragraph [0166] clearly states that the message from the relay WTRU to the AMF includes the identity-and not key data-of the remote WTRU: "The request message from the relay may include the remote WTRU identity (e.g., SUCI)." (Shi, [0166].)”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, Examiner relies upon the SUCI as “indicative of key data” and not “key data”. Furthermore, Shi Fig. 3 clearly shows the “data network” (i.e. “further network”) being accessed via the “core network” (i.e. “first network”) by the remote WTRU.
Applicant further argues with regards to claim 1:
“The Office Action again looks to paragraph [0166] of Shi as teaching the second "receiving" step (and third overall step) of Applicant's claim 1. (Office Action, p.7.) Per the Office Action, paragraph [0166] provides that the relay WTRU receives a "response from AMF indicating successful authentication includes identifiers and key data". (Office Action, p.7; Shi, [0166].) While it is true that the response message indicating successful authentication includes a PC5 root key and ID, it is not correct to state that the PC5 root key can be interpreted as "the key data" of the claim. This is particularly true as the key data mapped to earlier in the rejection was identified as the identity of the remote WTRU, which is not mentioned in the cited portion of paragraph [0166].”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner did not map the identity of the remote WTRU (i.e. SUCI) to the “key data” as applicant claims, but to “indicative of key data” as previously mentioned, as such the “key data” that is the PC5 root key is not a change in the mapping as argued.
Applicant further argues with regards to claim 1:
“The Office Action looks to Wang as teaching transmitting a request for at least one key for the further WTRU; receiving security credentials for the further WTRU; and transmitting, to the further WTRU, the received security credentials. (Office Action, p.7-8.) Specifically, the Office Action contends that "it would have been obvious to combine the key request of Wang with the relay security of Shi, such that upon successfully authenticating the remote WTRU via the AMF, the relay WTRU requests key data for the remote WTRU, as it would advantageously prevent desynchronization of key data." (Office Action, p.8; Wang, [0088].) In Shi, the relay WTRU receives the authentication result, including PC5 root key, and uses this information to generate the session key and provide the identification to the remote WTRU to generate corresponding keys. Paragraph [0166] goes on to state "upon successfully establishing a secure PC5 ink [sic]...send a response message...to the remote WTRU indicating successful establishment of the PC5 link." This suggests that Shi is already entirely capable of performing the functions that the Office Action alleges Wang is capable of performing; therefore, the teachings of Wang and those of Shi are redundant and combining them adds no value. In other words, one possessing ordinary skill in the art would not look for a solution to a problem that does not exist.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shi’s disclosing of establishing a secure PC5 link does not render Wang redundant. Wang is relied upon for the particular sequence of requesting key data for the further WTRU, receiving its security credentials, and transmitting those credentials to the further WTRU. Shi’s ability to establish a secure link does not discourage using Wang’s known procedure to prevent key-data desynchronization.
Applicant argues with regards to claim 2:
“Per the Office Action, Shi at [0165] discloses that direct communication request from remote WTRU to WTRU relay includes subscription concealed identifier (SUCI), which therefore teaches the subject matter of Applicant's claims 2 and 9. (Office Action, p.8.) However, as discussed above, a SUCI is not key data. Rather, SUCI is merely an identifier of a subscription. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 directed at Applicant's claims 2 and 9 should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner is not identifying the SUCI as the key data. The SUCI identifies the subscription, while the resulting key data is associated with, and therefore indicative of, that subscription identifier.
Applicant argues with regards to claim 6:
“The Office Action again looks to paragraph [0165] of Shi as teaching the subject matter of dependent claims 6 and 13. However, as already argued above, the "information indicative of key data" was interpreted as the SUCI, so there is a change of interpretation when it comes to this claim. And, further, Shi does not provide that SUCI is any kind of key data. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 directed at Applicant's claims 6 and 13 should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “information indicative of key data” is not limited to the SUCI. The resulting Krelay ID also identifies, and is therefore indicative of, the corresponding key data and is stored as required.
Applicant argues with regards to claim 7:
“Per the Office Action, paragraph [0114] of Shi teaches the subject matter of Applicant's claims 7 and 14. (Office Action, p.9.) Specifically, the Office Action contends that the Shi discloses that the WTRU-to-network relay may "store and retrieve PDU session parameters for remote WTRU and verify with the core network for reuse after[.]" (Office Action, p.9.) Therefore, Shi teaches that that the PDU session and its parameters are not associated with the remote WTRU. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 directed at Applicant's claims 7 and 14 should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shi expressly discloses storing an retrieving PDU-session parameters “for the remote WTRU,” associating those parameters with the remote WTRU. Verification with the core network before reuse does not indicate otherwise.
All other arguments presented by Applicant either repeat or rely upon the issues addressed above, and are also not persuasive for the reasons given above.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first recitation of the following acronyms is not expanded: [0018] 5G; and [0036] IEEE. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2023/0023639 A1), published Jan. 26, 2023, in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0254690 A1), published Aug. 10, 2023.
As to claims 1 and 8, Shi substantially discloses a method at a wireless transmit/receive unit, WTRU, comprising at least one hardware processor (Shi Fig. 3 “WTRU-to-NW Relay”; Fig. 2 WTRU A & B communicating via PC5; Fig. 1D items 102a-c WTRU mobiles), hereinafter referred to by the method, the method comprising: receiving, from a further WTRU (Shi Fig. 3 “Remote WTRU”), a request for communication, the request for communication comprising information indicative of key data associated with the further WTRU (Shi [0165] direct communication request from remote WTRU to WTRU relay includes subscription concealed identifier (SUCI)); transmitting, to a first network, a request for access for the further WTRU to a further network, the request for access comprising information indicative of the key data (Shi [0088] use access-mobility function (AMF) of relay WTRU to authenticate remote WTRU access to a network; Fig. 3 & [0019] ProSe architecture using WTRU-to-network relay – showing remote WTRU accessing data network via relay WTRU and core network having AMF; [0166] relay WTRU sending request to authenticate remote WTRU to AMF that includes SUCI); receiving, from the first network, a response message comprising information indicative of an authentication result and of the key data (Shi [0166] response from AMF indicating successful authentication includes identifiers and key data); when the information indicative of the authentication result indicates successful authentication (Shi [0166] upon successful authentication relay WTRU derives keys for session). Shi fails to explicitly disclose transmitting a request for at least one key for the further WTRU; receiving security credentials for the further WTRU; and transmitting, to the further WTRU, the received security credentials. Wang describes a relay WTRU handling connection requests from another remote WTRU. With this in mind, Wang discloses transmitting a request for at least one key for the further WTRU (Wang Fig. 3 item 336 key request by relay WTRU for remote WTRU; [0096]); receiving security credentials for the further WTRU (Wang Fig. 3 item 342 key response received at relay WTRU;); and transmitting, to the further WTRU, the received security credentials (Wang Fig. 3 item 344 relay WTRU transmits key freshness parameter 2 and generic bootstrapping architecture (GBA) push information (GPI) to remote WTRU). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the key request of Wang with the relay security of Shi, such that upon successfully authenticating the remote WTRU via the AMF, the relay WTRU requests key data for the remote WTRU, as it would advantageously prevent desynchronization of key data used in the connection (Wang [0088]).
As to claims 2 and 9, Shi and Wang disclose the invention as claimed as described in claims 1 and 8, respectively, including wherein the key data is indicative of a subscription identifier (Shi [0165] direct communication request from remote WTRU to WTRU relay includes subscription concealed identifier (SUCI)).
As to claims 3 and 10, Shi and Wang disclose the invention as claimed as described in claims 1 and 8, respectively, including wherein the request for communication further comprises information indicative of a code indicative of a relay service, and of at least one of a key freshness indicator and a first nonce (Wang Fig. 3 item 334 direct communication request has relay service code, and freshness parameter 1; [0095]).
As to claims 6 and 13, Shi and Wang disclose the invention as claimed as described in claims 1 and 8, respectively, including further comprising storing the information indicative of key data associated with the further WTRU (Shi [0165] relay WTRU stores root key and Krelay ID).
As to claims 7 and 14, Shi and Wang disclose the invention as claimed as described in claims 6 and 13, respectively, including further comprising, in response to the information indicative of the authentication result indicating successful authentication, retrieving the stored information indicative of key data associated with the further WTRU (Shi [0114] store and retrieve PDU session parameters for remote WTRU and verify with the core network for reuse after).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2023/0023639 A1), published Jan. 26, 2023, in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0254690 A1), published Aug. 10, 2023, in further view of Wu (US 2024/0388904 A1), filed Jul. 26, 2024.
As to claims 4 and 11, Shi and Wang substantially disclose the invention as claimed as described in claims 3 and 10, respectively, including communications including information indicative of the code indicative of a relay service (Wang Fig. 3 item 336 request from relay having relay service code (RSC)). Shi and Wang fail to explicitly disclose wherein the request for access and the response message further comprise information indicative of the code indicative of a relay service. Wu describes a method for authorizing whether a terminal is authorized to provide or use a relay service. With this in mind, Wu discloses wherein the request for access and the response message further comprise information indicative of the code indicative of a relay service (Wu Fig. 5 S513-S519; [0302]-[0313] relay terminal device sends remote key requests that includes relay service code, which is then authenticated by the relay’s AMF, the response to the relay terminal device includes a key derived from the relay service code if authentication is successful). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the relay service code authentication of Wu with the relay security of Shi and Wang, such that whether the relay WTRU is allowed to use the relay service code is authenticated as in Wu, as it would advantageously ensure security of the relay communication connection (Wu [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu (US 2023/0319556 A1) is related to a key obtaining method and communication apparatus.
Wifvesson (US 2023/0370839 A1) is related to key management for UE-to-Network relay access.
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 ERIC W SHEPPERD whose telephone number is (571)270-5654. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, Alt. Friday, 7:30AM - 5:00PM, EST.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571)272-3880. 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.
/ERIC W SHEPPERD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
ERIC W. SHEPPERD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights