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 by applicant dated 08/07/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 24-26, 29, 33, 34, 38, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MARTINEZ (US 20220264301 A1).
Regarding claim 24, MARTINEZ teaches a first core network device comprising:
at least one processor (Para [0054]); and
at least one memory storing instructions (Para [0054]) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first core network device (Para [0081]-[0086]: NFR) at least to:
receive, from a second core network device (Para [0081]-[0086]: NF 107), status information of a certificate of the second core network device (Para [0081]-[0086]: In an initial step 1100, the NF 107 creates its NF profile. The NF profile includes caCertificates attribute that contains the root and/or intermediate CA certificates that are required to validate the certificate of NF 107. Then, the NRF 106 receives the NF profile from NF 107.); and
store the status information in a profile of the second core network device (Para [0086]: The NRF 106 receives the NF profile and stores the received NF profile in its data repository 106A.).
Regarding claim 25, MARTINEZ teaches the first core network device of claim 24, wherein the first core network device is further caused to:
receive, from a third device (Para [0090]: the service consumer NF 107D), a request associated with a service provided by the second core network device (Para [0090]: In step 1201, the service consumer NF 107D sends an Nnrf_NFDiscovery request to the NRF 107. This request indicates at least a particular NF type as a selection criterion.);
validate the stored status information of the certificate to determine whether the certificate is still valid (Para [0003]. Para [0051]. Para [0091]: The NFs 107D may register, update or deregister their respective NR profile in the NRF 106. Then, in step 1202, the NRF 106 consults its data repository 106A for matching NF profiles of one or more service producer NFs 107E and returns an Nnrf_NFDiscovery response. This response contains the NF profiles matching the one or more criteria indicated in step 1201. Thus, when the NRF checks for a matching certificate, it is essentially validating that a valid certificate exists within its registry.); and
based on determining that the certificate is still valid, transmit, to the third device, a response for accessing the service provided by the second core network device (Para [0096]-[0097]: at the end of the signaling procedure, the service consumer NF 107D has all the NF identities, CA certificates and NF identifiers of all service producer NFs 107E that it potentially needs to consume services from.).
Regarding claim 26, MARTINEZ teaches the first core network device of claim 24, wherein the first core network device is caused to receive the status information by at least one of:
receiving the status information during registration of the profile of the second core network device with the first core network device, or receiving the status information during updating of the profile of the second core network device with the first core network device (Para [0081]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 29, MARTINEZ teaches the first core network device of claim 25, wherein the request from the third device comprises at least one of:
a network function (NF) discovery request, an access token request, or a subscription request (Para [0081].).
Regarding claim 33, MARTINEZ teaches a second core network device comprising:
at least one processor (Para [0054]); and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Para [0054]), cause the second core network device (Para [0081]-[0086]: NFR) at least to:
obtain status information of a certificate of the second core network device (Para [0081]-[0086]: In an initial step 1100, the NF 107 creates its NF profile. The NF profile includes caCertificates attribute that contains the root and/or intermediate CA certificates that are required to validate the certificate of NF 107. Then, the NRF 106 receives the NF profile from NF 107.); and
transmit the status information to a first core network device configured to store the status information in a profile of the second core network device (Para [0086]: The NRF 106 receives the NF profile and stores the received NF profile in its data repository 106A.).
Regarding claim 34, Pala teaches the second core network device of claim 33, wherein the second core network device is caused to transmit the status information by at least one of:
transmitting the status information to the first core network device during registration of the profile of the second core network device with the first core network device, or transmitting the status information to the first core network device during updating of the profile of the second core network device with the first core network device (Para [0081]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 38, MARTINEZ teaches the second core network device of claim 37, wherein the second core network device is caused to transmit the request for the status information based on at least one of:
determining that previous status information of the certificate at the second core network device is to expire, receiving, from a server of an operator or an operation administration and maintenance (OAM) server, an indication of updating the status information, or a reboot of the second core network device (Para [0117]-[0118]: the NRF 106 sends a NFStatusNotify request in step 1404. The request includes the modified caCertificates attribute received in step 1401 and indicates the identifier attribute of the service producer NF 107E associated therewith. In step 1405, a particular service consumer NF 107D receives the request, and returns an NFStatusNotify response to the NRF 106.).
Regarding claim 39, MARTINEZ teaches the second core network device of claim 33, wherein the second core network device is caused to obtain the status information by:
receiving, from a certificate status server, the status information determined by the certificate status server based on at least one of:
determining that previous status information of the certificate transmitted to the second core network device is to expire, receiving, from a server of an operator or an OAM server, an indication of updating previous status information of the certificate transmitted to the second core network device, or receiving, from a server of an operator or an OAM server, an indication of a reboot of the second network device (Para [0117]-[0118]: the NRF 106 sends a NFStatusNotify request in step 1404. The request includes the modified caCertificates attribute received in step 1401 and indicates the identifier attribute of the service producer NF 107E associated therewith. In step 1405, a particular service consumer NF 107D receives the request, and returns an NFStatusNotify response to the NRF 106.).
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.
Claim(s) 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTINEZ (US 20220264301 A1) in view of Asay (US 5903882 A).
Regarding claim 27, MARTINEZ teaches the first core network device of claim 24.
MARTINEZ does not disclose wherein the status information comprises a timestamp indicating validity of the status information.
Asay teaches wherein the status information comprises a timestamp indicating validity of the status information (Col 14 lines 43-54. Col 21 lines 55-61: The certificate validity database includes, for each primary certificate 110, its validity status (valid, revoked, expired or suspended).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MARTINEZ with the teachings of Asay to include wherein the first core network device is further caused to: receive, from a third device, a request associated with a service provided by the second core network device; validate the stored status information of the certificate to determine whether the certificate is still valid; and based on determining that the certificate is still valid, transmit, to the third device, a response for accessing the service provided by the second core network device in order to prevent replay attacks.
Regarding claim 28, MARTINEZ teaches the first core network device of claim 25.
MARTINEZ does not disclose wherein the first core network device is caused to validate the stored status information by: determining that the status information does not expire.
Asay teaches wherein the first core network device is caused to validate the stored status information by:
determining that the status information does not expire (Col 14 lines 43-54. Col 21 lines 55-61: The certificate validity database includes, for each primary certificate 110, its validity status (valid, revoked, expired or suspended).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MARTINEZ with the teachings of Asay to include wherein the first core network device is caused to validate the stored status information by: determining that the status information does not expire in order to prevent replay attacks.
Regarding claim 30, MARTINEZ teaches the first core network device of claim 24.
MARTINEZ does not disclose wherein the first core network device is further caused to: based on determining that the status information expires, report expiry of the status information to a server of an operator or an operation administration and maintenance (OAM) server for management of a state of the second core network device.
Asay teaches wherein the first core network device is further caused to: based on determining that the status information expires, report expiry of the status information to a server of an operator or an operation administration and maintenance (OAM) server for management of a state of the second core network device (Col 14 lines 43-54. Col 21 lines 55-61: The certificate validity database includes, for each primary certificate 110, its validity status (valid, revoked, expired or suspended), and the supplemental assurance parameters 122 applicable to secondary certificates based on the primary certificate, and links to account history and periodic reporting information. Periodically, while the initial primary certificate 110 or one of its replacements is valid, the reliance server 104 which is designated to provide assurance for that certificate sends electronic reports of account status to the subscriber mechanism 106.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MARTINEZ with the teachings of Asay to include wherein the first core network device is further caused to: based on determining that the status information expires, report expiry of the status information to a server of an operator or an operation administration and maintenance (OAM) server for management of a state of the second core network device in order to revoke the expired certificate to ensure a secure authentication path.
Regarding claim 35, MARTINEZ teaches the second core network device of claim 33.
MARTINEZ does not disclose wherein the status information comprises a timestamp indicating validity of the status information.
Asay teaches wherein the status information comprises a timestamp indicating validity of the status information (Col 14 lines 43-54. Col 21 lines 55-61: The certificate validity database includes, for each primary certificate 110, its validity status (valid, revoked, expired or suspended), and the supplemental assurance parameters 122 applicable to secondary certificates based on the primary certificate, and links to account history and periodic reporting information. Periodically, while the initial primary certificate 110 or one of its replacements is valid, the reliance server 104 which is designated to provide assurance for that certificate sends electronic reports of account status to the subscriber mechanism 106.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MARTINEZ with the teachings of Asay to include wherein the first core network device is further caused to: receive, from a third device, a request associated with a service provided by the second core network device; validate the stored status information of the certificate to determine whether the certificate is still valid; and based on determining that the certificate is still valid, transmit, to the third device, a response for accessing the service provided by the second core network device in order to prevent replay attacks.
Regarding claim 36, MARTINEZ teache the second core network device of claim 33.
MARTINEZ does not disclose wherein the second core network device is caused to obtain the status information by: obtaining the status information from a certificate status server periodically.
Asay teaches wherein the second core network device is caused to obtain the status information by:
obtaining the status information from a certificate status server periodically (Col 14 lines 43-54. Col 21 lines 55-61: The certificate validity database includes, for each primary certificate 110, its validity status (valid, revoked, expired or suspended), and the supplemental assurance parameters 122 applicable to secondary certificates based on the primary certificate, and links to account history and periodic reporting information. Periodically, while the initial primary certificate 110 or one of its replacements is valid, the reliance server 104 which is designated to provide assurance for that certificate sends electronic reports of account status to the subscriber mechanism 106.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MARTINEZ with the teachings of Asay to include wherein the second core network device is caused to obtain the status information by: obtaining the status information from a certificate status server periodically in order to implement automated certificate verification.
Regarding claim 40, MARTINEZ teaches the second core network device of claim 24.
MARTINEZ does not disclose wherein the second core network device is further caused to: based on determining that the status information expires, report expiry of the status information to a server of an operator or an operation administration and maintenance (OAM) server for management of a state of the second core network device.
Asay teaches wherein the second core network device is further caused to: based on determining that the status information expires, report expiry of the status information to a server of an operator or an operation administration and maintenance (OAM) server for management of a state of the second core network device (Col 14 lines 43-54. Col 21 lines 55-61: The certificate validity database includes, for each primary certificate 110, its validity status (valid, revoked, expired or suspended), and the supplemental assurance parameters 122 applicable to secondary certificates based on the primary certificate, and links to account history and periodic reporting information. Periodically, while the initial primary certificate 110 or one of its replacements is valid, the reliance server 104 which is designated to provide assurance for that certificate sends electronic reports of account status to the subscriber mechanism 106.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MARTINEZ with the teachings of Asay to include wherein the second core network device is further caused to: based on determining that the status information expires, report expiry of the status information to a server of an operator or an operation administration and maintenance (OAM) server for management of a state of the second core network device in order to implement automated certificate verification.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTINEZ (US 20220264301 A1) in view of Asay (US 5903882 A) in view of Feng (US 10581619 B2).
Regarding claim 31, MARTINEZ in view of Asay teaches the first core network device of claim 30.
MARTINEZ in view of Asay does not explicitly disclose wherein the OAM server is further caused to perform at least one of the following based on determining that the second core network device is down or removed: inactivating the profile of the second core network device in the first core network device, or transmitting an indication of revoking the certificate of the second core network device to a server of a certificate authority or a registration authority for management of the certificate.
Feng teaches wherein the OAM server is further caused to perform at least one of the following based on determining that the second core network device is down or removed (claim 1: when the first instance is a terminated instance.):
inactivating the profile of the second core network device in the first core network device, or transmitting an indication of revoking the certificate of the second core network device to a server of a certificate authority or a registration authority for management of the certificate (claim 1: when the first instance is a terminated instance, update certificate status information of the first instance to a revocation state.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MARTINEZ in view of Asay with the teachings of Feng to include wherein the OAM server is further caused to perform at least one of the following based on determining that the second core network device is down or removed: inactivating the profile of the second core network device in the first core network device, or transmitting an indication of revoking the certificate of the second core network device to a server of a certificate authority or a registration authority for management of the certificate in order to prevent unauthorizes device from accessing secure network resources.
Claim(s) 32, 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTINEZ (US 20220264301 A1) in view of Asay (US 5903882 A) in view of Feng (US 10581619 B2).
Regarding claim 32, MARTINEZ teaches the first core network device of claim 24.
MARTINEZ does not explicitly disclose wherein the status information at least comprises online certificate status protocol (OCSP) stapling.
Feng teaches wherein the status information at least comprises online certificate status protocol (OCSP) stapling (Claim 1: wherein the second device is an Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) server.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MARTINEZ with the teachings of Feng to include wherein the status information at least comprises online certificate status protocol (OCSP) stapling in order to checks if a digital certificate is still valid or if it has been revoked before it expires.
Regarding 41, MARTINEZ teaches the second core network device of claim 33.
MARTINEZ does not explicitly disclose wherein the status information at least comprises online certificate status protocol (OCSP) stapling.
Feng teaches wherein the status information at least comprises online certificate status protocol (OCSP) stapling (Claim 1: wherein the second device is an Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) server.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pala in view of Asay with the teachings of Feng to include wherein the status information at least comprises online certificate status protocol (OCSP) stapling in order to checks if a digital certificate is still valid or if it has been revoked before it expires.
Claim(s) 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTINEZ (US 20220264301 A1) in view of Pala (US 20200067706 A1).
Regarding claim 37, MARTINEZ teaches the second core network device of claim 33.
MARTINEZ does not explicitly disclose transmitting a request for the status information to a certificate status server; and receiving a response comprising the status information from the certificate status server.
Pala teaches wherein the second core network device is caused to obtain the status information by:
transmitting a request for the status information to a certificate status server (Para [0059]: cloud service server 308 may query database 312 to retrieve the first status of first digital certificate 306(1) associated with first device 310(1). Cloud service server 308 may then generate a response message based on the first status and transmit a response message to first device 310(1).); and
receiving a response comprising the status information from the certificate status server (Para [0059]: cloud service server 308 retrieve the first status of first digital certificate from database 312. The cloud service server 308 may then generate a response message based on the first status and transmit a response message to first device 310(1).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MARTINEZ with the teachings of Pala to include transmitting a request for the status information to a certificate status server; and receiving a response comprising the status information from the certificate status server in order to prevent using invalid credential.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY BAZNA whose telephone number is (703)756-1258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 08:30 AM-05:00 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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at (571) 272-3739. 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.
/JUDY BAZNA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2495
/FARID HOMAYOUNMEHR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights