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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 02/13/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-19 and 21 were amended.
Claims 20 and 22-23 were canceled.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record recited in rejecting the claims in the office action under the rejection section in addition to:
Lee et al. (US 20200359218 A1) ¶201 “the EEC identifier is derived from the identifier of a subscriber, the EEC may include the identifier of a mobile communication service provider derived from a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI), a mobile station international subscriber director number (MSISDN), or a generic public subscription identifier (GPSI), and serial numbers distinguished between mobile communication service providers.”
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, individually or in combination, each and every limitation of the claimed invention as a whole. For example, the prior art above individually or in combination do not disclose claim 21: “receive a first request from an application function (AF), the request comprising an identifier of the AF and an identifier of an authentication and key management for applications (AKMA) anchor key; responsive to receiving the first request, send a second request to an AKMA anchor function (AAnF), the second request comprising the identifier for the AKMA anchor key; responsive to sending the second request, receive a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI); responsive to receiving the SUPI, retrieve user consent information; and send the retrieved user consent information for use by the AF.”
Thus, the Examiner finds that the prior art does not provide sufficient teaching or motivation for anticipating or rendering obvious, within the claimed invention as a whole, without the usage of impermissible hindsight reasoning.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khare et al. (US 20220217539 A1) hereinafter referred to as Khare in view of Rajadurai et al. (US 20220210640 A1) hereinafter referred to as Rajadurai.
With respect to claim 1, Khare discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to: (Khare ¶65-67 recite the claimed hardware).
receive an application key request from an application function (AF), the application key request comprising an AF identifier of the AF; acquire user consent information; (Khare Fig. 1. Khare ¶38 “NFc 110 may be performed by any logical network entity, such as an AF [application function]”. In the prior art NFc and AF are interchangeable moving forward. Khare ¶41 teaches after receiving an initial user request (step 510 Fig. 5) using NFc [AF] identifier and Khare ¶47 “UCA NF 120 may retrieve from UDM 130, by transmitting a request and receiving a response, said user consent information concerning the at least one UE, wherein said user consent information indicates individually whether NFc 110 is authorized to access data related to each of the at least one UE whose consent is requested by NFc 110.”. Khare ¶53 teaches receive the key configuration in case of a successful user consent “NFc 110 may either be configured with a corresponding public key or use digital certificates in Public Key Infrastructure, PKI”).
evaluate the user consent information for a service provided by the AF identified by the AF identifier; (Khare ¶53 teaches receive the key configuration in case of a successful user consent “NFc 110 may either be configured with a corresponding public key or use digital certificates in Public Key Infrastructure, PKI”).
detect that no user consent is granted to the service provided by the AF identified by the AF identifier; and responsive to detection that no user consent is granted to the service, send to the AF in response to the application key request, to a first application key response message indicating that no user consent is granted to the service. (Khare ¶51 “user has given the consent to collect the data but based on policy, the one of the consumer network function is not allowed to collect [no consent] the data whereas other network function is allowed to collect data. If NFc 110 is not authorized to access data related to any of the request UE(s), UCA NF 120 can reject the request with an error code [response message].”)
Khare does not explicitly disclose “AKMA”
However, Rajadurai in an analogous art discloses: the key request and response comprise AKMA in the Abstract.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khare with AKMA taught by Rajadurai to ensure a consent is obtained before refreshing/deriving a key comprising an AKMA (see Rajadurai ¶8-11 and 77).
Claims 11-12 recite a method and apparatus respectively. The claims have slight difference in language but recites similar matter to claim 1 and 3 and therefore rejected based upon the same rationale.
With respect to claim 2, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first AKMA application key response message omits a first security key. (Khare ¶51 the error message if there is no consent is interpreted as omitting the key since if a consent is provided a key is returned. While Rajadurai ¶8-11 and 77 teach the response comprises an AKMA for the same motivational reasoning as the independent claim).
With respect to claim 3, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: detect that user consent is granted to the service provided by the AF identified by the AF identifier; (Khare ¶41 and ¶53 teach using NFc identifier [AF] to check user consent).
and responsive to detection that the user consent is granted to the service, send to the AF in response to the AKMA application key request, a second AKMA application key response message comprising a first security key. (Khare ¶53 teaches if there is no user consent then send a security error on the other hand if there is a consent then send a key in a different [second] message. While Rajadurai ¶8-11 and 77 teach the response comprises an AKMA for the same motivational reasoning as the independent claim).
With respect to claim 4, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to derive the first security key from a second security key(Rajadurai ¶8 summarizes “After successful primary authentication of a user of the UE (10) (e.g., a Universal Mobile Telecommunications Service (UMTS) Subscriber Identity Module (USIM)), the AUSF (20A) and the UE (10) (e.g., Mobile equipment hosting USIM) derives an AKMA anchor key (KAKMA) and an AKMA Key Identifier (A-KID) from an AUSF key (KAUSF). At operation S102, the AUSF (20A) registers the A-KID, the KAKMA, and a Subscription Permanent Identifier (SUPI) into an AKMA Anchor Function (AAnF) server (20B).” Wherein Rajadurai ¶104, Fig. 4, teaches the authentication comprises “consent” which is performed prior to key derivation as shown in Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 5, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the first AKMA application key response message comprises at least one of a cause value that indicates the no user consent, or a user consent result that indicates the user consent is not granted. (Khare ¶47 53 teach the response to the request is whether there is user consent or not. While Rajadurai ¶8-11 and 77 teach the response comprises an AKMA for the same motivational reasoning as the independent claim).
Claims 13-14 recite an apparatus claim. The claims have slight difference in language but recites similar matter to claim 5 in view of claim 1 and therefore rejected based upon the same rationale.
With respect to claim 6, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the apparatus is an AKMA anchor function (AAnF). (Rajadurai ¶121, Fig. 4 illustrates the apparatus comprises AAnF).
With respect to claim 7, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive the user consent information from an authentication server function (AUSF). (Khare ¶24 and 53 teach computing unit UCA NF for authentication which is interpreted as server).
With respect to claim 8, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the user consent information is received from the AUSF in a key registration request message that(Khare ¶53 based on the successful consent, at least, a security key is received. Alternative/optional limitations omitted from mapping).
With respect to claim 9, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim1 wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: send a user consent request to a united data management (UDM) function, the user consent request comprising the AF identifier; and receive, from the UDM in response to the user consent request, the user consent information. (Khare ¶25 teaches the user/equipment (UE) information is stored on Unified Data Manager (UDM), see Khare Fig. 1. Khare ¶38 “NFc 110 may be performed by any logical network entity, such as an AF [application function]”. Khare ¶41 teaches using identifier and Khare ¶47 “UCA NF 120 may retrieve from UDM 130, by transmitting a request and receiving a response, said user consent information concerning the at least one UE, wherein said user consent information indicates individually whether NFc 110 is authorized to access data related to each of the at least one UE whose consent is requested by NFc 110.”).
With respect to claim 10, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 9, wherein: the AKMA application key request further comprises an identifier of a second security key; the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to select a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) based on the identifier of the second security key; (Rajadurai ¶8 summarizes “UE (10) initiates a primary authentication with an Authentication Server Function (AUSF) (20A). After successful primary authentication of a user of the UE (10) (e.g., a Universal Mobile Telecommunications Service (UMTS) Subscriber Identity Module (USIM)), the AUSF (20A) and the UE (10) (e.g., Mobile equipment hosting USIM) derives an AKMA anchor key (KAKMA) and an AKMA Key Identifier (A-KID) from an AUSF key (KAUSF). At operation S102, the AUSF (20A) registers the A-KID, the KAKMA, and a Subscription Permanent Identifier (SUPI) into an AKMA Anchor Function (AAnF) server (20B).”)
and the user consent request further comprises the SUPI. (Rajadurai ¶121-122 teaches consent request comprise a SUPI at some point when reciting “the AUSF (200A) sends the generated A-KID, and the KAKMA to the AAnF server (200B) together with the SUPI of the UE (100) … based on the local configuration and/or indication from the UDM server (200D), the AUSF (200A) indicates the authorization/consent information/policy on the KAF refresh to the AAnF server (200B). The AAnF server (200B) stores the information sent by the AUSF (200A).”).
With respect to claim 16, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 12, wherein: the first request comprises an identifier of an authentication and key management for applications (AKMA) anchor key; and the second request comprises the identifier of the AKMA anchor key. (Rajadurai ¶8-9 summarize that each request is sent using an KAKMA and A-KID which are interpreted as the identifiers of the AKMA anchor key).
With respect to claim 17, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the network entity is a united data management (UDM) network entity. (Khare ¶25 teaches the user/equipment (UE) information is stored on Unified Data Manager (UDM), see Khare Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 18, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the user consent information is received from the network entity. (Khare Abstract “user consent authorization request from a logical network entity”)
With respect to claim 19, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the apparatus is the AF. (Khare Fig. 5 step 510 discloses the request is sent by an NFc or an AF).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khare in view of Rajadurai as applied to claim 1-14 and 16-19 above, and further in view of Rajadurai et al. (US 20240292212 A1) hereinafter referred to as Raj2.
With respect to claim 15, Khare in view of Rajadurai disclose: The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to:
Kahre in view of Rajadurai do not explicitly disclose the rest of the claim.
However, Raj2 in an analogous art discloses: detect that user consent is granted to the service provided by the AF identified by the AF identifier; (Raj2 ¶117 “consent may be on the AF-ID basis”)
and responsive to detecting that the user consent is granted to the service, send to an authentication and key management for applications (AKMA) anchor function (AAnF), an AKMA application key request comprising the AF identifier of the AF. (Raj2 ¶124 Fig. 4 steps S409-S410 teach based on the consent sending AAnF 200B a generate key request based on the AF-ID which is also referred to as AF-FQDN).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khare in view of Rajadurai with detecting that user consent is granted to the service provided by the AF identified by the AF identifier and responsive to detecting that the user consent is granted to the service, send to an authentication and key management for applications (AKMA) anchor function (AAnF), an AKMA application key request comprising the AF identifier of the AF as disclosed by Raj2 to identify the application function (see Raj2 ¶117).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights