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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the communication filed on January 31, 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings filed on January 31, 2025 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 19/042528, filed on January 31, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 13, 2025, and October 22, 2025 were filed after the mailing date of the application 19/042528, filed on January 31, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To being with claim 1 recites:
receiving, by a radio access network device, authentication request …., and
sending, by the radio access network device, an authentication response, ....
The limitation of receiving and sending, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “radio access network device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “radio access network device” language, receiving and sending in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the act. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements – using a “radio access network device” and a “network controlled repeater” to perform the information sending and receiving steps. The “radio access network device” and the “network controlled repeater” in the step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of information sending and receiving) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “radio access network device” and a “network controlled repeater” to perform the mental steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The independent claims 8, and 15 recite limitations that are similar to those of claim 1; therefore, rejected under same rational of claim 1.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 16-20 which depends on independent claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind/mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Therefore, the dependent claims fail to obviate such rejections and are themselves rejected under this title for they are also abstract ideas.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abedini et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2022/0053433A1 / or “Abedini” hereinafter [provided by the applicant]).
Regarding claim 1, Abedini discloses “An authentication method, comprising” (Para 0006: a method of wireless communication at a repeater device is disclosed):
“receiving, by a radio access network device, authentication request information from a relay device” (Fig. 11: Network Access Node 1102 i.e., a “radio access network device”; and Repeater Device 1114 i.e., a “relay device”; and Fig. 39: Step 3912, the Repeater Device 3904 transmits a connect request message MSG3 to the Network Access Node 3902; and Para 0435), “wherein the authentication request information comprises identity information of the relay device, and the identity information of the relay device comprises at least one of a temporary identifier
or
type indication information of the relay device, and the type indication information indicates that the relay device is a network-controlled repeater (NCR)” (Para 0435: the MSG3 may include a repeater device indication. Also, the repeater device indication may signal that the repeater device is a smart repeater device i.e., a “network-controlled repeater”);
“and sending, by the radio access network device, an authentication response, wherein the authentication response comprises a result of performing authentication on the relay device” (Fig. 39, Step 3914:MSG4-RRCConnRsp; and Para 0434: The Network Access Node transmits an RRC connection or setup response to the Repeater Device).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Abedini discloses “wherein the authentication request information is carried in at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) setup request message [[and]]or a RRC setup complete message in a random access process” (Fig. 39: Step 3912, the Repeater Device 3904 transmits a connect request message MSG3 to the Network Access Node 3902; and Para 0435; and Fig. 39, Step 3914:MSG4-RRCConnRsp; and Para 0434: The Network Access Node transmits an RRC connection or setup response to the Repeater Device).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 1, Abedini discloses “wherein the method further comprises: sending, by a central unit (CU) of the radio access network device, indication information to a distributed unit (DU) of the radio access network device, wherein the indication information indicates that the relay device is the NCR” (Para 0435: the MSG3 may include a repeater device indication. Also, the repeater device indication may signal that the repeater device is a smart repeater device i.e., a “network-controlled repeater”).
Regarding claim 8, Abedini discloses “An authentication method, comprising” (Para 0006: a method of wireless communication at a repeater device is disclosed):
“sending, by a relay device, authentication request information, wherein the authentication request information comprises identity information of the relay device” (Fig. 11: Network Access Node 1102 i.e., a “radio access network device”; and Repeater Device 1114 i.e., a “relay device”; and Fig. 39: Step 3912, the Repeater Device 3904 transmits a connect request message MSG3 to the Network Access Node 3902; and Para 0435), “and the identity information of the relay device comprises at least one of a temporary identifier or type indication information of the relay device, and the type indication information indicates that the relay device is a network-controlled repeater (NCR)” (Para 0435: the MSG3 may include a repeater device indication. Also, the repeater device indication may signal that the repeater device is a smart repeater device i.e., a “network-controlled repeater”);
“and receiving, by the relay device, an authentication response, wherein the authentication response comprises a result of performing authentication on the relay device” (Fig. 39, Step 3914:MSG4-RRCConnRsp; and Para 0434: The Network Access Node transmits an RRC connection or setup response to the Repeater Device).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 2. Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 3. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Abedini discloses “An authentication method, comprising” (Para 0006: a method of wireless communication at a repeater device is disclosed):
“receiving, by a core network device, authentication request information, wherein the authentication request information comprises identity information of a relay device, the identity information of the relay device comprises at least one of a temporary identifier or type indication information of the relay device, and the type indication information indicates that the relay device is a network-controlled repeater (NCR)” (Para 0449: "A second sub-option (Alt b.1.2) may involve adding a new indication (e.g., a "smart-repeater device-node indication") in the "initial UE message" sent by the network access node to the CN (AMF) 4104. For example, the "initial UE message" may be defined to include a repeater device indication similar to the IAB node indication discussed above);
“and sending, by the core network device, an authentication response, wherein the authentication response comprises a result of performing authentication on the relay device by the core network device” (Para 0454: "If an AMF supports smart repeater devices, the AMF may indicate as such to a network access node. For example, the AMF may include a repeater device supported information element (IE) in a Nex Generation setup response (NG SETUP RESPONSE) message. After performing repeater device authorization, the AMF may include a "repeater device authorized" IE, for an authorized repeater device, in associated Next Generation Application Protocol (NG-AP) signaling (e.g., in "initial context setup request," "handover request," or "UE context modification request").
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 2. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 3. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, in view of claim 15, Abedini discloses “wherein the method further comprises: if the core network device successfully authenticates the relay device, sending, by the core network device, indication information to a radio access network device, wherein the indication information indicates that the relay device is the NCR” (Para 0450: capability information is provided which indicates a smart repeater device).
Regarding claim 19, in view of claim 18, Abedini discloses “wherein the core network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF) network element or an authentication server function (AUSF) network element” (Para 0451: the core network is an AMF).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Walter Dees (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2023/0319549 A1 / or “Dees” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Abedini discloses providing by the repeater device indication of its identity (Abedini, Para 0439-0440).
But Abedini fails to specially disclose an identity information of the relay device is a permanent identifier.
However, Dees discloses “wherein the identity information of the relay device comprises a permanent identifier of the relay device or a concealed identifier obtained by encrypting the permanent identifier” (Dees: Para 0394: a relay device uses its subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) and/or subscription concealed identifier (SUCI) in authentication process with a cellular communication system (CCS)).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of an identity information of the relay device is a permanent identifier of Dees to the Information For Wireless Communication Repeater Device of Abedini to create a system where the relay UE is authenticated based on SUPI/SUCI and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to setup authenticated communication channel between the relay UE and the CCS (Dees, Para 0394).
Regarding claim 20, in view of claim 19, Abedini discloses providing by the repeater device indication of its identity (Abedini, Para 0439-0440).
But Abedini fails to specially disclose a unified data management (UDM) network element sending indication information to the AMF or the AUSF.
However, Dees discloses “wherein the method further comprises: sending, by a unified data management (UDM) network element, the indication information to the AMF or the AUSF” (Dees, Para 0313-0320: The AMF consults the UDM to obtain Relay UE Connection
Context Identifier (CCI)).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of a unified data management (UDM) network element sending indication information to the AMF or the AUSF of Dees to the Information For Wireless Communication Repeater Device of Abedini to create a system where the relay UE is authorized based on CCI and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to setup authorized communication between the relay UE and the CCS (Dees, Para 0314).
Claims 4-5, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Windsor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2021/0099873 A1 / or “Windsor” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Abedini discloses authentication of a wireless communication device by a core network node using indication (Abedini, Para 0540).
But Abedini fails to specially disclose authenticating a device by an access point (AP) using an authentication key and a random number.
However, Windsor discloses “wherein the method further comprises: obtaining, by the radio access network device, an authentication key of the relay device” (Fig. 1: Client Device 102 i.e., a “relay device” is authenticated by the Access Point 104 i.e., a “radio access network device”; and Para 0034: Client Device and Access Point generates Pre-Shared Key (PSK)/ Pairwise Master Key (PMK) i.e., an “authentication key”);
“generating, by the radio access network device, first authentication information based on a first random number and the authentication key” (Para 0037: a nonce i.e. a “first random number” and PSK/PMK i.e., the “authentication key” can be used to generate a message integrity code (MIC) by the client device and the AP);
“sending, by the radio access network device, the first random number to the relay device” (Step 1: Sending ANonce; and Para 0037: the AP i.e., the “radio access network device” sends the random number to the client device i.e., the “relay device”);
“receiving, by the radio access network device, second authentication information from the relay device” (Step 2: Sending SNonce and MIC i.e., “second authentication information”; and Para 0037: the client device i.e., the “relay device” forwards a MIC to the AP i.e., the “radio access network device”);
“and comparing, by the radio access network device, the first authentication information with the second authentication information” (Step 112: Verifying MIC; and Para 0037: the MICs are compared for verification).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of authenticating a device by an access point (AP) using an authentication key and a random number of Windsor to the Information For Wireless Communication Repeater Device of Abedini to create a system where the client device is authenticated based on a shared key and generated authentication information using the shard key and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to setup encryption keys between the client device and the AP for encrypted communication (Windsor, Para 0046).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 4, Abedini in view of Windsor disclose “wherein the method further comprises: generating, by the radio access network device, third authentication information based on a plurality of second random numbers and the authentication key; and sending, by the radio access network device, the third authentication information and the plurality of second random numbers to the relay device” (Windsor, Fig. 1: Step 3: Sending ANonce i.e., the “a plurality of second random numbers”, MIC i.e., a “third authentication information” and Keys; and Para 0046. Also, the MIC is generated by the AP when sharing the encryption keys which are separate from PTK).
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 8, Abedini discloses authentication of a wireless communication device by a core network node using indication (Abedini, Para 0540).
But Abedini fails to specially disclose distributing random numbers between a client and access point (AP) and generating authentication information using an authentication key.
However, Windsor discloses “wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the relay device, a first random number from a radio access network device” (Step 1: Sending ANonce; and Para 0037: the AP i.e., the “radio access network device” sends the random number to the client device i.e., the “relay device”);
“generating, by the relay device, second authentication information based on the first random number and an authentication key of the relay device; and sending, by the relay device, the second authentication information to the radio access network device” (Step 2: Sending SNonce and MIC; and Para 0037: the client device i.e., the “relay device” forwards a MIC to the AP i.e., the “radio access network device”).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of distributing random numbers between a client and access point (AP) and generating authentication information using an authentication key of Windsor to the Information For Wireless Communication Repeater Device of Abedini to create a system where the client device is authenticated based on a shared key and generated authentication information using the shard key and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to setup encryption keys between the client device and the AP for encrypted communication (Windsor, Para 0046).
Regarding claim 12, in view of claim 11, Abedini in view of Windsor disclose “wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the relay device, third authentication information and a plurality of second random numbers from the radio access network device” (Windsor, Fig. 1: Step 3: Sending ANonce i.e., the “a plurality of second random numbers”, MIC i.e., a “third authentication information” and Keys; and Para 0046. Also, the MIC is generated by the AP when sharing the encryption keys which are separate from PTK);
“generating, by the relay device, fourth authentication information based on the plurality of second random numbers and the authentication key; and comparing, by the relay device, the third authentication information with the fourth authentication information” (Windsor, Fig. 1: Step 114; and Para 0046: the client device acknowledges the received MIC form the AP by comparing with a generated MIC i.e., a “fourth authentication information” and of the AP and installs encryption keys for communication).
Regarding claim 13, in view of claim 12, Abedini in view of Windsor disclose “comprising: if the third authentication information is consistent with the fourth authentication information, determining that an authentication on the radio access network device is successful;
or
if the third authentication information is inconsistent with the fourth authentication information, determining that an authentication on the radio access network device fails” (Windsor, Fig. 1: Step 114; and para 0046: the client device acknowledges the MIC of the AP and installs encryption keys for communication).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Palanigounder et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2011/0314522 A1 / or “Palanigounder” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Abedini discloses authentication of a wireless communication device by a core network node using indication (Abedini, Para 0540).
But Abedini fails to specially disclose authenticating a relay device using certificates.
However, Palanigounder discloses “wherein the method further comprises: obtaining, by the radio access network device, device certificate information of the relay device; and performing, by the radio access network device, authentication on the relay device based on the device certificate information” (Palanigounder, Para 0036-0037: a relay device is authenticated using certificates).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of authenticating a relay device using certificates of Palanigounder to the Information For Wireless Communication Repeater Device of Abedini to create a system where the client device is authenticated based on certificates for network access and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to setup secure communication channel between the relay device and a network (Palanigounder, Para 00031).
Regarding claim 14, in view of claim 8, Abedini in view of Palanigounder disclose wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the relay device, device certificate information of the relay device to a radio access network device” (Palanigounder, Para 0036-0037: a relay device is authenticated using certificates)[see claim 6 for motivation].
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walker et al. (US 2024/0356625 A1) discloses:
[0045] … the reconfigurable relay device may comprise metadata including at least one of information required for deriving capabilities of the reconfigurable relay device and its control by a network, location and/or orientation information, a set of configuration states, a default configuration state, a reconfiguration speed, authentication, control and query methods, and a network control prioritization information. This option increases efficiency of path planning and establishment by providing a variety of initial information.
Rajavelsamy Rajadurai (US 2020/0396611 A1) discloses:
[0021] … generating, by the IAB relay device, a stratum security key for one of an access stratums (AS) security establishment and a non-access stratums (NAS) security establishment with an IAB donor device in the wireless network. Further, the method includes generating, by the IAB relay device, a PSK based on the stratum security key. Further, the method includes generating an IKEv2 value using the PSK for establishing an F1 interface security with the IAB donor device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/SARAH SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights