DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending.
This Action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 August 2025 and 05 October 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: each “unit configured to” in claims 1-5. These limitations are considered to have the required structure in the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Based on the claims invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the claims are considered to have a combination of hardware and software and as such properly fall into a statutory class of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101 rather than being software per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites that an identifier is “in the user”. It is unclear how an identifier could be “in the user”.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera et al. (US 20190190915) in view of Mohamad Abdule et al. (US 20200007530).
As per claims 1 and 6, Barrera et al. teaches a method and authorization apparatus comprising: a reception unit configured to receive a communication system use authorization request from a network node apparatus based on a registration request sent from a second terminal for which a first terminal acts as a parent (see paragraphs [0047] and [0063]-[0064);
a control unit configured to, based on an identifier of the second terminal contained in the communication system use authorization request, obtain from a data storing apparatus an identifier of the first terminal and, using the identifier of the first terminal, obtain from the first terminal information indicating that consent has been obtained for the second terminal to connect to the network (see paragraph [0065] where sending text message or email message based on account information must look up the phone number or the email address); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit information to use a communication system, based on the consent and on condition that the second terminal is authenticated (see paragraph [0067]).
The Barrera et al. system fails to explicitly disclose transmitting authorization information that authorizes the second terminal to use a communication system.
However, Muhamed Abdul et al. teaches the receiving of a registration request (see paragraph [0231]), receiving consent from a different device (see paragraph [0232]) and transmitting authorization information that authorizes the second terminal to use a communication system based on the consent and on a condition that the second terminal is authenticated (see paragraphs [0230] and [0235]-[0238]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to include the authorization information of Muhamed Abdul et al. in the Barrera et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to automate the authorization on the second terminal.
As per claim 2, the modified Barrera et al. and Muhamed Abdul et al. system discloses the identifier of the second terminal includes an identifier representing a user, and wherein the control unit obtains the identifier of the first terminal from the data storing apparatus using the identifier representing the user (see Barrera et al. paragraph [0065]).
As per claim 3, the modified Barrera et al. and Muhamed Abdul et al. system discloses the identifier of the second terminal includes the identifier representing the user and an identifier, in the user, for identifying the second terminal (see Barrera et al. paragraph [0065] and Muhamed Abdul paragraph [0232]).
As per claim 4, the modified Barrera et al. and Muhamed Abdul et al. system discloses the authorization apparatus as claimed in A communication system comprising: the authorization apparatus as claimed in and an access and mobility management apparatus, the access and mobility management apparatus comprising a control unit configured to execute an authentication procedure for the second terminal based on an ID token generated based on the authorization information (see Muhamed Abdul et al. paragraphs [0232]-[0236]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Barrera et al. and Muhamed Abdul et al. system as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Dao et al. (US 20170272121).
As per claim 5, the modified Barrera et al. and Muhamed Adbul et al. system fails to explicitly disclose the control unit of the access and mobility management apparatus generates information corresponding to subscriber information of the second terminal, using subscriber information of the first terminal and information pre-configured in a user information exposure apparatus.
However, Dao et al. teaches the control unit of the access and mobility management apparatus generates information corresponding to subscriber information of the second terminal, using subscriber information of the first terminal and information pre-configured in a user information exposure apparatus (see paragraphs [0059]-[0061]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the subscriber information of Dao et al. in the modified Barrera et al. and Muhamed Abdul et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to control access to cellular connections in addition to other accesses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to controlling access to resources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J PYZOCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/Michael Pyzocha/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
