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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9655005 to Ahmavaara (hereinafter “Ahmavaara”) in view of US 11140611 to Raval et al. (hereinafter “Raval”).
Regarding claim 1, Ahmavaara discloses:
A method, comprising:
configuring a connection system by associating neutral host network (NHN) indicators (Ahmavaara 13:40-44: “Based on the information of UE 370, NHN core 380, together with local services/signup 394 and NHN-AAA 392, may authenticate UE 370 that UE 370 has subscribed the offload services provided by NHN 396.”) with mobile network operator (MNO) network identifiers (Ahmavaara 5:37-39: “That is, the NHN may broadcast the public land mobile network (PLMN) identification (ID) of the mobile network to the UEs within radio coverage.”) for one or more MNOs (Ahmavaara Fig. 3A, 304 “HPLMN”, which is a “home public land mobile network (HPLMN) 304” as per 3:13) based on service information corresponding to the one or more MNOs (Ahmavaara 12:62-65: “Such authorization relationship may be established based on a business agreement between the operator of HPLMN 304 and the provider of NHN 306.”);
receiving, by the connection system, an access request message (Ahmavaara 14:31-32: “At 412, method 400 includes receiving requests to access the mobile network from the at least one UE.”) from a private cellular network (Ahmavaara Fig. 3A, 318: Offload AAA/MME Server), the access request message comprising a user equipment (UE) identifier of a UE (Ahmavaara Fig. 5, 506: “…wherein the first authorization relationship specifies that the NHN is authorized by the first mobile network to provide offload services for a first subset of UEs…”) and an MNO network identifier of an MNO (Ahmavaara Fig. 5, 506: “…wherein the first authorization relationship specifies that the NHN is authorized by the first mobile network to provide offload services for a first subset of UEs...”) associated with the UE (Ahmavaara 14:53-56: “The first authorization relationship may indicate that NHN 306 is authorized to provide offload services to UEs that have subscribed to data services, e.g., access to the internet, provided by HPLMN 304.”);
verifying (Ahmavaara Fig. 6, 606), by the connection system, that the MNO permits NHN services based on locating a NHN indicator associated with the MNO network identifier (Ahmavaara 13:17-19: “The PLMN ID of HPLMN 304 may be included in a system information block (SIB).”) included in the access request message (Ahmavaara 14:53-56: “The first authorization relationship may indicate that NHN 306 is authorized to provide offload services to UEs that have subscribed to data services, e.g., access to the internet, provided by HPLMN 304.”);
based on the verification, establishing, by the connection system, an authentication channel (Ahmavaara Fig. 3A, 330) between the private cellular network and a core network corresponding to the MNO network identifier (Ahmavaara Fig. 3A: 330 connects 318 to “a core network” 312) []; and
receiving, by the connection system, one or more messages from the core network operated by the MNO authenticating the UE for access to the core network (Ahmavaara 11:29-35: “In an aspect, the offload AAA/MME server 318 may receive authentication information for the UE 324, authorization information for the UE 324, subscriber information for the UE 324, and/or accounting information for the UE 324 from the HSS 312 via the Wx interface 330.”), wherein the UE is granted access to the private cellular network based on the authentication from the core network (11:35-37: “…via the Wx interface 330. The UE 324 may establish the wireless communication link 328 by attaching to a 3GPP network, connecting to an Internet APN, establishing a PDP context, and establishing a default bearer.”).
Ahmavaara does not disclose routing the access request message to the core network.
However, Raval discloses: routing the access request message to the core network (Raval Fig. 2: S1AP and “NAS authentication, security activation” in 207).
Ahmavaara and Raval are both art analogous to the claimed invention because all are directed towards providing NHN services to mobile users. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to route the access request message through the core network as taught by Raval in order to allow for flexibility in how service providers manage and verify their customers.
Regarding claim 2, Ahmavaara in view of Raval discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the private cellular network comprises one or more of: a private 5G cellular network and a private 4G cellular network (Ahmavaara 6:33: “FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an LTE network architecture 100.”).
Regarding claim 5, Ahmavaara in view of Raval discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the MNO network identifier comprises a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) ID (Ahmavaara 5:37-39: “That is, the NHN may broadcast the public land mobile network (PLMN) identification (ID) of the mobile network to the UEs within radio coverage.”).
Regarding claim 6, Ahmavaara in view of Raval discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the UE identifier comprises a Subscriber Identify Module (SIM) credentials (Ahmavaara 10:52-53: “In an aspect, the SIM card 340 includes a subscriber identifier associated with the HPLMN 304.”), a Subscriber Concealed Identifier (SUCI), or an International Mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) of the UE (Ahmavaara 10:53-56: “For example, the subscriber identifier may be a 3GPP international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) associated with the SIM card 340.”).
Regarding claim 9, Ahmavaara in view of Raval discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the access request message is based on a mobility function of the private cellular network (Ahmavaara Fig. 3A, 318: Offload AAA/MME Server) receiving an authentication request message from the UE (Ahmavaara 11:29-34: “In an aspect, the offload AAA/MME server 318 may receive authentication information for the UE 324, authorization information for the UE 324, subscriber information for the UE 324, and/or accounting information for the UE 324 from the HSS 312 via the Wx interface 330.”).
Regarding claim 10, Ahmavaara in view of Raval discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more messages from the core network authenticating the UE for access is based on one of Extensible Authentication Protocol Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA’) (Ahmavaara 4:60-64: “An NHN may support Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) authentication which allows the UEs to use a variety of mechanisms, such as EAP-Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA)”), 5G-AKA, or Evolved Packet System Authentication and Key Agreement (EPS-AKA).
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 recites essentially the same material as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 12 recites essentially the same material as claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 13 recites essentially the same material as claim 5 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 14 recites essentially the same material as claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 17, Ahmavaara in view of Raval discloses1:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the access request message is based on a mobility function of the private cellular network (Ahmavaara Fig. 3A, 318: Offload AAA/MME Server) receiving an authentication request message from the UE (Ahmavaara 11:29-34: “In an aspect, the offload AAA/MME server 318 may receive authentication information for the UE 324, authorization information for the UE 324, subscriber information for the UE 324, and/or accounting information for the UE 324 from the HSS 312 via the Wx interface 330.”), wherein the mobility function is an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) or a Mobility Management Entity (MME) (Ahmavaara Fig. 3A, 318: Offload AAA/MME Server).
Claim 18 recites essentially the same material as claim 10 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 19 recites a system comprising the hardware and software elements required to perform the method of claim 1 and configured to perform said method. Therefore, claim 19 recites essentially the same material as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 20 recites essentially the same material as claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmavaara in view of Raval as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220253841 by Lee (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 3, Ahmavaara in view of Raval discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein configuring the connection system comprises:
establishing a business agreement with the one or more MNOs (Ahmavaara 12:62-65: “Such authorization relationship may be established based on a business agreement between the operator of HPLMN 304 and the provider of NHN 306.”).
Ahmavaara in view of Raval does not disclose the use of SLAs or configuration files.
However, Lee discloses:
receiving one or more service level agreements (SLAs) (Lee [0025]: “In more detail, the present disclosure provides a neutral host network service structure using a blockchain and a smart contract for efficiently handling complex agreements and fulfillment management between telecommunication service providers, such as reducing transaction costs including trust-building, setting reasonable service rates commensurate with quality and their settlement, and compensation based on an SLA (service level agreement).”) from the one or more MNOs, (Lee [0025]: “…telecommunication service providers…”) the one or more SLA agreements comprising the service information defining NHN services offered by the one or more MNOs (Lee [0061]: “…the smart contract generation unit 402 first utilizes a standard contract or service level agreement (SLA) expressed in natural language as a basis for arranging the mobile network operator and the neutral host network operator to adjust/agree on negotiable conditions with each other.”; Examiner notes that the “negotiable conditions” in natural language would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as “defining NHN services”);
creating one or more configuration files for the one or more MNOs (Lee [0024]: “A smart contract is a computer program designed to automate the execution of the terms of a contract or agreement…”) that includes the NHN indicators based on the NHN services offered by the one or more MNOs (Lee [0024]: “…Unlike traditional contracts written in natural language, smart contracts are machine-executable programs that contain rules that can process inputs to produce results, from which actions can be triggered to be performed.”); and
configuring the connection system with the one or more configuration files (Lee [0011]: “…a blockchain service unit configured to use the blockchain to perform a function for causing the smart contract to be automatically executed in relation to usage of the neutral host network service by a UE subject to the neutral host network service.”), wherein the one or more configuration files are associated with the MNO network identifiers of the one or more MNOs (Lee Fig. 6, ④ “MNO Lookup”).
Lee is art analogous to the claimed invention because both are directed towards providing NHN services to mobile users. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to rely upon SLAs and configuration files as taught by Lee with the goal of “reducing transaction costs including trust building, setting reasonable service rates according to quality and their settlement, and compensation based on an SLA.” (Lee [0014]).
Regarding claim 4, Ahmavaara in view of Raval and Lee discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein verifying that the MNO permits NHN services comprises:
extracting, by the connection system, the MNO network identifier from the access request message (Lee Fig. 12, ③; [0043]: “The NHO node 300 requests to check the credential of the UE about its network service use right with the smart contract on the blockchain, and at this time, transmits the parameters provided from the UE along with the public key of the NHO node 300.”);
locating a configuration file corresponding to the MNO using the network identifier (Lee Fig. 12, ④); and
determining that the configuration file includes an NHN indicator (Lee Fig. 12, ⑤-⑥, “eContract Validation” and “Credential Check”).
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmavaara in view of Raval as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “MulteFire Release 1.0 Technical Paper” by the Alliance for Private Networks, 2017 (hereinafter “MulteFire”).
Regarding claim 7, Ahmavaara in view of Raval discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein TLS may be used (Ahmavaara 4:60-64: “An NHN may support Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) authentication which allows the UEs to use a variety of mechanisms, such as… EAP-Transport Layer Security (TLS), or EAP-Tunneled Transport Layer Security (TTLS).”).
Ahmavaara in view of Raval does not disclose the specific protocol by which the request message is communicated.
However, MulteFire discloses:
the access request message is communicated according to one of Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) protocol, DIAMETER protocol (MulteFire p. 12: “EAP signaling between the NHN and the external AAA server is transported using the AAA radius/diameter protocol or, in the case of a 3GPP AAA Server, using the SWa or STa reference point.”), or Service Based Interface (SBI) over Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol.
MulteFire is art analogous to the claimed invention because both are directed towards providing NHN services to mobile users. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a standard protocol (e.g., RADIUS or DIAMETER) as taught by MulteFire in order to maintain uniformity and cross-compatibility between various devices from different providers.
Regarding claim 8, Ahmavaara in view of Raval and MulteFire discloses:
The method of claim 7, wherein the access request message is received over one of a RADIUS over TLS (RadSec) interface, a DIAMETER interface (MulteFire p. 12: “EAP signaling between the NHN and the external AAA server is transported using the AAA radius/diameter protocol or, in the case of a 3GPP AAA Server, using the SWa or STa reference point.”), or an SBI.
Claim 15 recites essentially the same material as claim 7 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 16 recites essentially the same material as claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10462663 to Ahmavaara describes providing access services to connecting wireless devices particularly for (but not limited to) neutral host networks, where the neutral networks are preconfigured with information about each service provider.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL HABASHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 AM-6 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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at (571)270-1138. 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.
DH
Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2407 8/10/2026
1 Examiner notes that claim 17 very nearly recites essentially the same material as claim 9; however, the Markush grouping (i.e., that the mobility function is an AMF or a MME) differentiates the scopes of the claims.
Prosecution Insights