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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 16, 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because some reference characters are not associated with lead lines or underlined (e.g., Figs. 1A, 1C; Reference Characters 116, 102a). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-24, 27-34, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-patent Literature, entitled, “A Distributed Authentication Scheme Based on Smart Contract for Roaming Service in Mobile Vehicular Networks” (hereinafter “Xue”) in view of Chinese Publication No. CN110572824A (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 21, A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising: at least one processor configured to: send a request to a first network system requesting a roaming proof address from the first network system, wherein the first network system comprises a home network system through which the WTRU is registered for performing wireless communications (p. 5289:1, The user sends the identity IDU to HNCC via a secure channel.); receive a response from the first network system comprising the roaming proof address, wherein the roaming proof address comprises an address to a second network system where roaming proof information is accessible via the roaming proof address (p. 5289:1, Finally, HNCC sends {IDU,IDNCC,SKU,PKU,CRU, MADDR}to the user via a secure channel where MADDR is HNCC’s MC address.); receive an authentication request from the third network system (p. 5289:2, the AP then generates MC’s input as TXin = IDNCC||T′U||IDU||PKU||CRU||VU, and invokes its HNCC’s MC by the stored MADDR and sends TXin for user authentication.), wherein the authentication request comprises a request to perform authentication based on the roaming proof information (p. 5289:2, As illustrated in Fig. 4, MC stores IDHNCC, AC’s address and the mapping table of IDNCC to the corresponding MC’saddress.); and send an authentication response to the third network system, wherein the authentication response comprises a response to the authentication request that is based on the roaming proof information (p. 5290, Algorithm 4, “Output: True or false”).
Xue teaches: send an access request MU to the third network system, wherein the third network system is a visited network system (p. 5289:1, The user authentication phase is implemented when a mobile user roams to a foreign network and accesses the network for obtaining services.; p. 5289:2 The user firstly generates an access request MU and sends it to the corresponding AP. The details for generating MU are illustrated in Algorithm 1.). Xue, does not explicitly teach: send the roaming proof address to a third network system to access the third network system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches: send the roaming proof address to a third network system to access the third network system ([0056] Step S102: The mobile user sends a switch authentication request message {Addr_Contract_user,aP,n<sub>1</sub>} to the service node in the new roaming area, where Addr_Contract_user is the user certificate contract address, aP is the mobile user's temporary public key, and n<sub>1</sub> is a random number;).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xue to include the feature of including the roaming proof address and a combination of Xue with Li renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., including the roaming proof address in a request to access a third network system).
Regarding claim 22, Xue teaches: wherein the roaming proof information is accessible via distributed ledgers, and wherein the distributed ledgers comprise a blockchain (Fig. 4, MC ADDR).
Regarding claim 23, Xue teaches: wherein the second network is a blockchain network (Fig. 3, Blockchain Networks).
Regarding claim 24, Xue teaches: wherein the request sent to the first network system comprises an indication of an authentication policy supported by the WTRU (p. 5289:1 ECDSA’s private/public key pairs, See Applicant’s Specification [0008]).
Regarding claim 27, Xue teaches; receive an authentication challenge from the third network system, wherein the authentication challenge was determined based on the authentication policy supported by the WTRU (p. 5289:2 Upon receiving MAP, the user’s processing is the same as the AP’s.); and perform the authentication challenge to determine the authentication response (p. 5289:2 Specifically, the user first checks the validity of tsAP and TAP, and then generates MC’s input as TXin = IDNCC||T′ AP||IDAP||PKAP||CRAP||VAP, and invokes his/her HNCC’s MC and sends TXin for AP authentication.).
Regarding claim 28, Xue teaches: wherein the response from the first network system performed by the at least one processor further comprises authentication parameters (p. 5289:2 IDU||PKU||CRU||RU||IDNCC||VU||tsU) and a WTRU-Proof value that is used to anonymously authenticate the WTRU (p. 5289:2 Set VU = EC.sign(SKU,TU)).
Regarding claim 29, Xue teaches: send a request to a blockchain system to obtain one or more public keys of the third network system to verify and authenticate the third network system; and receive a response from the blockchain system that comprises the one or more public keys of the third network system (p. 5290:2-5291:1, In our proposed scheme, when two network operators decides to establish a roaming partnership, all they need to do is to update the corresponding items of the mapping table in their MC. Specifically, the HNCC adds the mapping of IDFNCC to FNCC’s MCaddress by sending a transaction to the blockchain network, and the FNCC also adds the mapping of IDHNCC to HNCC’s MCaddress. The revocation of the roaming partnership is just in a reversed way. HNCC and FNCC respectively erase the corresponding mapping. As thus, when AP belonging to FNCC invokes HNCC’s MC for user/AP authentication, as shown in Algorithm 3, if IDFNCC does not exist in the mapping table, user/AP will know that the HNCC and FNCC have not yet established a roaming partnership and will terminate the access process.).
Regarding claim 30, Xue teaches: receive an indication from the third network system that indicates that the authentication is complete (p. 5289:2 Otherwise, the AP generates the access response MAP as shown in Algorithm 2, and computes the session key SK = rAP · RU. Finally, the AP sends MAP to the user.).
Regarding claim 31, A method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising: sending a request to a first network system requesting a roaming proof address from the first network system, wherein the first network system comprises a home network system through which the WTRU is registered for performing wireless communications (p. 5289:1, The user sends the identity IDU to HNCC via a secure channel.); receiving a response from the first network system comprising the roaming proof address, wherein the roaming proof address comprises an address to a second network system where roaming proof information is accessible via the roaming proof address (p. 5289:1, Finally, HNCC sends {IDU,IDNCC,SKU,PKU,CRU, MADDR}to the user via a secure channel where MADDR is HNCC’s MC address.); receiving an authentication request from the third network system (p. 5289:2, the AP then generates MC’s input as TXin = IDNCC||T′U||IDU||PKU||CRU||VU, and invokes its HNCC’s MC by the stored MADDR and sends TXin for user authentication.), wherein the authentication request comprises a request to perform authentication based on the roaming proof information (p. 5289:2, As illustrated in Fig. 4, MC stores IDHNCC, AC’s address and the mapping table of IDNCC to the corresponding MC’saddress.); and sending an authentication response to the third network system, wherein the authentication response comprises a response to the authentication request that is based on the roaming proof information (p. 5290, Algorithm 4, “Output: True or false”).
Xue teaches: send an access request MU to the third network system, wherein the third network system is a visited network system (p. 5289:1, The user authentication phase is implemented when a mobile user roams to a foreign network and accesses the network for obtaining services.; p. 5289:2 The user firstly generates an access request MU and sends it to the corresponding AP. The details for generating MU are illustrated in Algorithm 1.). Xue, does not explicitly teach: send the roaming proof address to a third network system to access the third network system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches: send the roaming proof address to a third network system to access the third network system ([0056] Step S102: The mobile user sends a switch authentication request message {Addr_Contract_user,aP,n<sub>1</sub>} to the service node in the new roaming area, where Addr_Contract_user is the user certificate contract address, aP is the mobile user's temporary public key, and n<sub>1</sub> is a random number;).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xue to include the feature of including the roaming proof address and a combination of Xue with Li renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., including the roaming proof address in a request to access a third network system).
Regarding claim 32, Xue teaches: wherein the roaming proof information is accessible via distributed ledgers, and wherein the distributed ledgers comprise a blockchain (Fig. 4, MC ADDR).
Regarding claim 33, Xue teaches: wherein the second network is a blockchain network (Fig. 3, Blockchain Networks).
Regarding claim 34, Xue teaches: wherein the request sent to the first network system comprises an indication of an authentication policy supported by the WTRU (p. 5289:1 ECDSA’s private/public key pairs, See Applicant’s Specification [0008]).
Regarding claim 37, Xue teaches; receiving an authentication challenge from the third network system, wherein the authentication challenge was determined based on the authentication policy supported by the WTRU (p. 5289:2 Upon receiving MAP, the user’s processing is the same as the AP’s.); and perform the authentication challenge to determine the authentication response (p. 5289:2 Specifically, the user first checks the validity of tsAP and TAP, and then generates MC’s input as TXin = IDNCC||T′ AP||IDAP||PKAP||CRAP||VAP, and invokes his/her HNCC’s MC and sends TXin for AP authentication.).
Regarding claim 38, Xue teaches: wherein the response from the first network system performed by the at least one processor further comprises authentication parameters (p. 5289:2 IDU||PKU||CRU||RU||IDNCC||VU||tsU) and a WTRU-Proof value that is used to anonymously authenticate the WTRU (p. 5289:2 Set VU = EC.sign(SKU,TU)).
Regarding claim 39, Xue teaches: sending a request to a blockchain system to obtain one or more public keys of the third network system to verify and authenticate the third network system; and receive a response from the blockchain system that comprises the one or more public keys of the third network system (p. 5290:2-5291:1, In our proposed scheme, when two network operators decides to establish a roaming partnership, all they need to do is to update the corresponding items of the mapping table in their MC. Specifically, the HNCC adds the mapping of IDFNCC to FNCC’s MCaddress by sending a transaction to the blockchain network, and the FNCC also adds the mapping of IDHNCC to HNCC’s MCaddress. The revocation of the roaming partnership is just in a reversed way. HNCC and FNCC respectively erase the corresponding mapping. As thus, when AP belonging to FNCC invokes HNCC’s MC for user/AP authentication, as shown in Algorithm 3, if IDFNCC does not exist in the mapping table, user/AP will know that the HNCC and FNCC have not yet established a roaming partnership and will terminate the access process.).
Regarding claim 40, Xue teaches: receiving an indication from the third network system that indicates that the authentication is complete (p. 5289:2 Otherwise, the AP generates the access response MAP as shown in Algorithm 2, and computes the session key SK = rAP · RU. Finally, the AP sends MAP to the user.).
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Li and further in view of Non-patent Literature entitled, “Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Cryptographic Suites” (hereinafter “TS 119.312”).
Regarding claim 25, Xue does not explicitly teach: wherein the authentication policy performed by the at least one processor is a Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) authentication policy or a Chameleon Hash (CH) authentication policy.
However, in the same field of endeavor, TS 119.312 teaches that these authentication policies are interchangeable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
144
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Xue and Li to include the feature of an RSA or CH policy and a combination of Xue and Li with TS 119.312 renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing an RSA or CH authentication policy).
Regarding claim 35, Xue does not explicitly teach: wherein the authentication policy performed by the at least one processor is a Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) authentication policy or a Chameleon Hash (CH) authentication policy.
However, in the same field of endeavor, TS 119.312 teaches that these authentication policies are interchangeable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
144
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Xue and Li to include the feature of an RSA or CH policy and a combination of Xue and Li with TS 119.312 renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing an RSA or CH authentication policy).
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Li and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0272511 (hereinafter “Tian”).
Regarding claim 26, Xue teaches: wherein the request sent to the first network system by the at least one processor further comprises: an indication of a lifetime for the roaming proof address (p. 5289:2, TU).
The combination of Xue and Li does not explicitly teach: wherein the request sent to the first network system by the at least one processor further comprises: a location of the WTRU.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tian (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0272511) teaches: wherein the request sent to the first network system by the at least one processor further comprises: a location of the WTRU ([0009] queries current location information of the terminal device, and determines whether the terminal device is performing a communication service in the visited network).
Regarding claim 36, Xue teaches: wherein the request sent to the first network system by the at least one processor further comprises: an indication of a lifetime for the roaming proof address (p. 5289:2, TU).
The combination of Xue and Li does not explicitly teach: wherein the request sent to the first network system by the at least one processor further comprises: a location of the WTRU.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tian (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0272511) teaches: wherein the request sent to the first network system by the at least one processor further comprises: a location of the WTRU ([0009] queries current location information of the terminal device, and determines whether the terminal device is performing a communication service in the visited network).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2021/0037013 (Salkintzis) related to user authentication using connection information provided by a blockchain network
U.S. Publication No. 2020/0242603 (Salkintzis) related to providing network access using blockchain payments
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN BARRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0201. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am EST to 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, Jinsong HU can be reached at (571) 272-3965. 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.
/JAB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights