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
This communication is in response to the application filed on 04/03/2025 in which Claims 1-27 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 04/03/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-9, 13-14, 16, 19-22, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajput U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220272541 A1 (hereinafter " Rajput").
As to claim 1, Rajput teaches a method performed by a Unified Data Management (UDM), comprising (Rajput Pa. [0036]) [a UDM function 104 that manages user data]: determining that a user equipment (UE) has been registered in the UDM by an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (Rajput Pa. [0082]) can be implemented at any network function (NF) that processes or forwards AMF location service messages, including a visited SEPP of the UE and the AMF at which the UE is registered]; in response to the determination, sending a request message to the AMF to initiate a primary authentication procedure for the UE (Rajput Pa. [0010]) [A method for mitigating location tracking and DoS attacks that utilize an AMF location service includes receiving, at a network function (NF), an authentication response message from a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) of a user equipment (UE)], wherein the request message includes a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) associated with the UE (Rajput Pa. [0010]) [he method further includes extracting, by the NF and from the authentication response message, a subscription identifier and an indicator of an authentication result for the UE]; and receiving a response message from the AMF based on the request message (Rajput Pa. [0013]) [receiving an authentication response message includes receiving an Nausf_UEAuthentication message containing an authentication result parameter and a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI)], wherein the response message indicates an authentication status of the UE (Rajput Pa. [0055]) [responds to the Nudm_UEAuthentication request message by sending an Nudm_UEAuthentication response message containing an authentication result parameter and the SUPI of the UE. The value of the authentication result parameter indicates whether the authentication of the UE was successful or not.]
As to claim 5, Rajput teaches further comprising performing operations for the primary authentication procedure (Rajput Pa. [0052]) [performed by a visited SEPP in obtaining and storing UE subscription identification information and authentication result information from the Nausf authentication procedure]
As to claim 6, Rajput teaches wherein the UDM determines to initiate the primary authentication based on a Home Network policy (Rajput Pa. [0020]) [an authentication results collector implemented by the at least one processor for receiving an authentication response message from a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) of a user equipment (UE)]
As to claim 8, Rajput teaches wherein the UDM is associated with a 5G Core (5GC), and the UE is a 5G compliant UE (Rajput Pa. [0041]) [3GPP network architecture for 5G networks is that the Namf_Location service defined in 3GPP TS 29.518 does not require resource object level authorization before providing location information for a UE]
As to claims 9, 16, 22, claims 9, 16, 22 recite the claimed that contain respectively similar limitations as claim 1; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
As to claims 19 and 25, claims 19 and 25 recite the claimed that contain respectively similar limitations as claims 4, 5; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
As to claim 20, Rajput teaches wherein determining whether to perform the primary authentication procedure comprises inspecting a mark indicating whether the UE is to be authenticated (Rajput Pa. [0010]) [the indicator of the authentication result for the UE]
As to claim 21, Rajput teaches further comprising, upon determining that the primary authentication procedure is to be performed, initiating primary authentication with the UE (Rajput Pa. [0010]) [A method for mitigating location tracking and DoS attacks that utilize an AMF location service includes receiving, at a network function (NF), an authentication response message from a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) of a user equipment (UE)], and thereafter sending the response message to the UDM to indicate the authentication status of the UE (Rajput Pa. [0055]) [responds to the Nudm_UEAuthentication request message by sending an Nudm_UEAuthentication response message containing an authentication result parameter and the SUPI of the UE. The value of the authentication result parameter indicates whether the authentication of the UE was successful or not.]
As to claim 26, claim 26 recites the claimed that contain similar limitations as claim 20; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
As to claim 27, claim 27 recites the claimed that contain respectively similar limitations as claim 21; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
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 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.
Claims 2-4, 7, 10-12, 15, 17-18, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajput US 20220272541 A1, in view of Baskaran US 20250184729 A1.
As to claim 2, Rajput fails to teach wherein the request message comprises a re- authentication notification.
However, Baskaran discloses wherein the request message comprises a re- authentication notification (Baskaran Pa. [0093]) [maintain the at least one expiration time or the lifetime of the authentication duration along with a UE subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) configured to trigger a reauthentication]
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, that applying the known technique taught by Baskaran to the authentication system of Rajput would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would initiate primary authentication (Baskaran Pa. [0002])
As to claim 3, the combination of Rajput and Baskaran discloses wherein the request message further comprises a per-UE authentication policy (Baskaran Pa. [0059]) [eauthentication related to the SUPI according to the home network operator policy]
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, that applying the known technique taught by Baskaran to the authentication system of Rajput would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would initiate primary authentication (Baskaran Pa. [0002])
As to claim 4, Rajput teaches wherein the response message indicates whether the UE is reachable by the AMF (Baskaran Pa. [0002]) [Upon receiving the reauthentication request from the internal network function, the UDM checks whether the primary reauthentication for the UE is to be initiated, or whether the request is to be rejected, based on the operator policy.]
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, that applying the known technique taught by Baskaran to the authentication system of Rajput would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would initiate primary authentication (Baskaran Pa. [0002])
As to claim 7, the combination of Rajput and Baskaran discloses wherein the UDM determines to initiate the primary authentication in response to determining that the UE is not already engaged in a primary authentication procedure (Baskaran Pa. [0041]) [The operator policy includes the details of the wait period for the new request, after the last successful authentication. If the operator policy allows, then the UDM requests the AMF currently serving the UE to initiate the primary authentication for the UE. Upon receiving the request from the UDM, the AMF or SEAF initiates the primary authentication (e.g., described in TS 33.501), resulting in the generation of fresh key material in the UE and in the network, if the primary authentication is performed successfully.]
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, that applying the known technique taught by Baskaran to the authentication system of Rajput would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would initiate primary authentication (Baskaran Pa. [0002])
As to claims 10, 17, 23, claims 10, 17, 23 recite the claimed that contain respectively similar limitations as claim 2; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
As to claims 11, 18, 24, claims 11, 18, 24 recite the claimed that contain respectively similar limitations as claim 3; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
As to claims 12-15, claims 12-15 recite the claimed that contain respectively similar limitations as claims 4-7; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVANS DESROSIERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/EVANS DESROSIERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491