Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/958,651

ACCESS TOKEN MISSING CLAIM HANDLING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 25, 2024
Examiner
JACKSON, JENISE E
Art Unit
2499
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Nokia Technologies Oy
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
401 granted / 532 resolved
+17.4% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
548
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 532 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (2022/0095111) in view of Jack (HTTP Code 401: Unauthorized Access-What Is it and How to Fix It). As per claim 1, Fu et al. discloses an apparatus to implement a network function service producer (NFp), the apparatus comprising: at least one processor (Fu: para. 0143, #1204 processor); and at least one memory (Fu: para. 0143, #1206 memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving a service request from a network function service consumer (NFc) for access to a service provided by the NFp (Fu: See Fig. 3, #310, para. 0014, service request from NF consumer for access to a service provided by #304 NF producer); the request including an access token that asserts one or more claims and represents an access authorization issued to the NFc (Fu: See Fig. 9 #900, and para. 0120, request includes token that asserts one or more claims) performing a validation of the access token in which a determination is made that at least one claim is missing from the one or more claims asserted by the access token; and based on the validation (Fu: para. 0113, 0120, See Fig. 9 #902, performing validation of access token is made one claim “NF3” is missing) , the service request is rejected, and that indicates the at least one missing claim (Fu: para. 0113, 0120, See Fig. 9 #906, reject request, since the claim is not included in the token). Fu does not explicitly disclose sending an error response to the NFc that indicates the service request is rejected, and that indicates the at least one missing claim. However, analogous art of Jack teaches sending an error response to the NFc that indicates the service request is rejected, and that indicates the at least one missing claim (Jack: pg. 2, sending a 401 unauthorized error). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sending an error response to the NFc that indicates the service request is rejected, and that indicates the at least one missing claim of Jack with Fu, the motivation is that this is a clear indication that the client is not authorized to access the requested resource (Jack: pg. 2). As per claim 2, Fu discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Fu further discloses wherein the service request includes a supported feature indication that indicates support for receiving missing claims information (Fu: para. 0113, 0120, See Fig. 9 #902), and the error response is sent based on the supported feature indication (Fu: para. 0113, 0120, See Fig. 9 #906). As per claim 3, Fu discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Fu further discloses wherein the error response identifies the at least one missing claim, or includes a resource identifier of a resource at which the at least one missing claim is identified (claim recites “or”; Fu discloses error response identifies at least one missing claim, para. 0113, 0120, one claim “NF3” is missing). As per claim 4, Fu discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Fu further discloses wherein the error response identifies one or more required claims, or includes a resource identifier of a resource at which the one or more required claims are identified (claim recites “or”, discloses error response identifies one or more required claims, Fu: para. 0113, 0120, See Fig. 9 #906). As per claim 5, Fu discloses and Jack the apparatus of claim 1 . Jack further discloses wherein the service request is formatted as a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request message, the error response is formatted as an HTTP error response message that includes a WWW-Authenticate header, and the at least one missing claim is indicated in a field of the WWW-Authenticate header (Jack: see pg. 2, see pgs. 4-5, response code indicates the server cannot fulfill due to missing credentials such as a token, HTTP error, thus HTTP request and response message, unauthorized error with accompanying WWW authenticate header field). Same motivation as claim 1 above. As per claim 6, Fu and Jack disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Jack further discloses wherein the service request is formatted as a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request message, the response is formatted as an HTTP response message that includes a message payload, and the at least one missing claim is indicated in a problem details object of the message payload (Jack: pgs. 4-5, GET request/Http request message). Same motivation as claim 1 above. As per claim 7, rejected under similar basis as claim 1 above. As per claim 8, rejected under similar basis as claim 2. As per claims 9-10, rejected under similar basis as claims 5-6 respectively. As per claim 11, Fu discloses an apparatus to implement a network function service consumer (NFc), the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: sending a service request to a network function service producer (NFp) for access to a service provided by the NFp, the service request including an access token that asserts one or more claims and represents an access authorization issued to the NFc (Fu: See Fig. 3, #310, para. 0014, sending service request from NF consumer for access to a service provided by #304 NF producer); indicates the service request is rejected, and that indicates at least one claim that is missing from the one or more claims asserted by the access token (Fu: para. 0113, 0120, See Fig. 9 #906, reject request, since the claim is not included in the token); and based on the error response, retrieving a second access token that asserts a plurality of claims including the one or more claims and the at least one missing claim (Fu: See Fig. 9, #912, copy of the token, second access token). Fu does not explicitly disclose receiving an error response from the NFp. However, analogous art of Jack teaches receiving an error response (Jack: pg. 2, sending a 401 unauthorized error). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving an error response of Jack with Fu, the motivation is that this is a clear indication that the client is not authorized to access the requested resource (Jack: pg. 2). As per claim 12, rejected under similar basis as claim 3. As per claim 13, Fu and Jack disclose the apparatus of claim 11. Fu further discloses wherein the error response identifies one or more required claims, or includes a resource identifier of a resource at which the one or more required claims are identified (claim recites “or”; Fu discloses error response identifies at least one missing claim, para. 0113, 0120, one claim “NF3” is missing), and wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: determining the at least one missing claim based on a comparison of the one or more required claims and the one or more claims asserted by the access token (Fu: para. 0113, 0120, See Fig. 9 #902, performing validation of access token is made one claim “NF3” is missing). As per claims 14-15, rejected under similar basis as claims 5-6. As per claim 16, Fu and Jack disclose the apparatus of claim 11. Fu further discloses wherein the retrieving the second access token includes: sending an access token request to a network repository function (NRF) to request the second access token; and receiving the second access token from the NRF based on the access token request (Fu: See Fig. 9, para. 0120, copy of access token (i.e. second access token)). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENISE E JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3791. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm. 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, Philip J Chea can be reached at (571) 272-3951. 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. 3/12/2026 /J.E.J/Examiner, Art Unit 2499 /PHILIP J CHEA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 25, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598466
Account Data Sharing Method and Electronic Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598175
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND STORAGE MEDIA FOR ADMINISTRATION OF IDENTITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITHIN AN IDENTITY INFRASTRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598462
RESERVATIONS OF COMPUTING RESOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12574364
Two-Factor Authentication Systems And Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12549547
UNIVERSAL DEVICE IDENTIFIERS AND SIGNAL EXCHANGE COLLABORATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.7%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 532 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month