DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending and have been examined.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-22 are 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.
It is indefinite what the intended metes and bounds of the "entity" in the claims is.
Claims 1-22 recite the limitation “a protocol translation entity”, "an entity" to then refer to “the entity” making it indefinite which entity is intended. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This is not intended to be a complete list of such indefiniteness issues.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-22 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of Patent No. 12652285. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
“A method performed by a protocol translation entity, the method comprising: receiving from a Non-3rd Generation Partnership Project (Non-3GPP) access point a first authentication request message conforming to first protocol and comprising a subscription identifier; using the first authentication request message, which conforms to the the first protocol, to create a second authentication request message conforming to a second protocol, wherein the second authentication request message comprises the subscription identifier; and transmitting the second authentication request message to an entity” (claim 1, instant application) is analogous to
“A method performed by an authentication server function (AUSF), the method comprising: receiving, from AAA-Interworking Function (IWF), an authentication request message of a second protocol type for a User Equipment ‘UE’ for traffic offload from a Non-3rd Generation Partnership Project ‘Non-3GPP’ access network, which comprises a SUbscription Concealed Identifier, SUCI, of the UE; generating an authentication credential request message of the second protocol type that comprises the SUCI of the UE, based on the received authentication request message of the second protocol type; and transmitting, to a unified data management (UDM) function, the authentication credential request message of the second protocol type” (claim 1, patent 12652285).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims of the instant application have not in fact been patented.
The claims of the conflicting patents and/or applications contain every element of claims 1-22 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 1-22 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the copending application claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species with that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
“Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is “anticipated” by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim) 4. This court’s predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic claim. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving, generating, and transmitting information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are broad enough to cover receiving, generating, and transmitting information in the mind or with pen/paper, other than the generic computer components.
Regarding Prong One, these steps, as drafted, form a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “access point”, “entity”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “access point” language, the claim encompasses a user receiving, generating, and transmitting information as introduction to networking classes teach or making a determination based on some information as a user validating an identifier and granting access as guards grant access to visitors and librarians grant access to books.
Regarding Prong Two, there are no additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only use generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and are not patent eligible.
The claims are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by the “background of the invention” section and the cited references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McNamee (20120155389).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, McNamee teaches A method performed by a protocol translation entity, the method comprising: / A protocol translation entity, comprising: memory; and processing circuitry, wherein the protocol translation entity is operable to perform a method comprising (abstract):
receiving from a Non-3rd Generation Partnership Project (Non-3GPP) access point a first authentication request message conforming to first protocol and comprising a subscription identifier;
using the first authentication request message, which conforms to the the first protocol, to create a second authentication request message conforming to a second protocol, wherein the second authentication request message comprises the subscription identifier; and transmitting the second authentication request message to an entity (par.37-41, 48-55, 60-64, 110-120, translate between protocols for authentication, routing, etc, to provide interconnection between 3GPP and non-3GPP).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, McNamee teaches wherein the second authentication request message is transmitted to the entity for traffic offload from a Non-3GPP access network (48-55, 60-64).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, McNamee teaches wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the entity, an authentication response message conforming to the second protocol; using the authentication response message conforming to the second protocol to create an authentication response message conforming to the first protocol; and transmitting, to the Non-3GPP access point, the authentication response message conforming to the first protocol (136-142, 180-195).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, McNamee teaches wherein the first authentication request message comprises a Diameter based authentication request message over an SWa/STa interface; the second authentication request message comprises an authentication request message over an SBI interface with the entity; the authentication response message conforming to the first protocol comprises a Diameter based authentication response message over an SWa/STa interface; and the authentication response message conforming to the second protocol comprises an authentication response message over the SBI interface with the entity (176-185).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, McNamee teaches wherein the protocol translation entity is a component of an Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) proxy (70-75).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, McNamee teaches wherein the first protocol is an Evolved Packet Core (EPC) protocol, and the second protocol is a 5G Core protocol (60-65).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, McNamee teaches wherein the protocol translation entity comprises an AAA-Interworking Function, and the entity comprises an Authentication Server Function or an Authentication, Authorization and Accounting arranged at an AUSF (59-65).
Claims 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil (20220124079).
Regarding claim 17, Patil teaches A method performed by a Non-3rd Generation Partnership Project (Non-3GPP) access point, the method comprising (abstract):
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a request message for access authentication comprising a concealed subscription identifier; and transmitting, to a protocol translation entity, an authentication request message conforming to a first protocol and comprising the concealed subscription identifier (par.48-55, AMF receives SUCI forwards to AUSF for authentication, receives response).
Regarding claim 18, Patil teaches teaches wherein the method further comprises receiving, from the protocol translation entity, an authentication response message conforming to the first protocol (48-55).
Regarding claim 20, Patil teaches wherein the protocol translation entity comprises an AAA-Interworking Function (24-30).
Regarding claim 21, Patil teaches wherein the first protocol is an Evolved Packet Core protocol (18-25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamee (20120155389), and further in view of Patil (20220124079).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, McNamee does not expressly disclose, however, Patil teaches wherein the subscription identifier is a subscription concealed identifier (SUCI) (par.41-50).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamee to use other identifiers as taught by Patil.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further support additional means of authentication for 3GPP/non-3GPP environments (Patil, par.1-2, 20-40).
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil (20220124079), and further in view of McNamee (20120155389).
Regarding claim 19, Patil teaches interconnection between different entities, exchanging information, and authenticating entities (13-25, 48-55), but does not expressly disclose, however, McNamee teaches wherein the authentication request message of the first protocol type comprises a Diameter based authentication request message over an SWa/STa interface; and the authentication response message of the first protocol type comprises a Diameter based authentication response message over an SWa/STa interface (176-185).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil to support additional entities for providing interconnection between providers as taught by McNamee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further support additional means of authentication and service providers environments (McNamee, par.170-190).
Regarding claim 22, Patil does not expressly disclose, however, McNamee teaches A Non-3rd Generation Partnership Project ‘Non-3GPP’ access point, comprising: memory; and processing circuitry, wherein the protocol translation entity is operable to perform the method (par.37-41, 48-55, 60-64, 110-120).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil to support additional entities for providing interconnection between providers as taught by McNamee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further support additional means of authentication and service providers environments (McNamee, par.170-190).
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 authentication based on SUCI identifiers in 3GPP to/from non-3GPP networks, Prasad (20210144135)
Tangudu (20200275279) teaches the UE initiates the registration procedure for accessing/ obtaining the services provided by the CAG cell/NPN. The UE initiates the registration procedure by sending the SUCI as its identity to the NG-RAN requesting the access to the CAG cell/NPN. The NG-RAN forwards the received SUCI along with the CAG ID of the requested CAG cell/NPN to the AMF. The AMF inserts the CAG ID in the SUCI and forwards the SUCI of the UE along with the CAG ID to the UDM. The UDM reveals the received SUCI and generates an authentication vector. Based on the generated authentication vector by the UDM, the AMF authenticates the UE. In an example herein, consider that the primary authentication procedure is successful, since the UE has the valid NPN permissions. Once the primary authentication procedure is successful, the AMF receives a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) of the UE from the AUSF and verifies if the UE has the permissions to access the requested CAG cell/NPN based on the received SUPI. In an example herein, the AMF verifies that the UE is not authorized to access the CAG cells, since the UE does not have the permissions. Thereafter, the AMF rejects the registration procedure initiated by the UE. Consider another example scenario, wherein the UE is a rogue UE with no valid NPN permissions and no permissions to access the CAG cell/NPN. In such a scenario, the rogue UE sniffs the serving network and captures the SUCI (may or may not have the permissions to the CAG cell). The rogue UE then initiates the registration procedure by sending the captured SUCI as its identity to the AMF through the NG-RAN, wherein the NG-RAN may add the CAG ID of the requested CAG cell/NPN to the SUCI. The AMF forwards the received SUCI along with the CAG ID to the UDM, wherein the UDM reveals the SUCI, and generates the authentication vector. Based on the generated authentication vector, the AMF performs the authentication procedure. In an example herein, the AMF rejects the registration procedure of the UE, since the authentication fails, as the rogue UE does not have the valid NPN permissions.
You (20210306855) teaches authentication method based on a GBA, and the method includes: a BSF receives an initialization request message sent by a UE, wherein the initialization request message carries a first identifier of the UE, and the first identifier comprises at least one of the following: a SUCI, an identifier converted from the SUCI, and a TMPI associated with the subscriber identity; the BSF acquires an AV of the UE according to the first ID; the BSF completes GBA authentication with the UE according to the acquired AV. In this way, the privacy of the SUPI is protected for the UE, and the SUCI or the identifier converted from the SUCI is used to perform the bootstrapping process of the GBA, thereby improving the security of the GBA authentication process.
Chikkala (20210176628) teaches priority fallback of SUCI calculation. In accordance with some implementation, a UE may transmit, in response to receiving an indication of authentication failure for a first SUCI based on a first SUCI parameter, a second SUCI based on a second SUCI parameter different from the first SUCI parameter. In accordance with some implementation, the UE may further transmit a SUCI with NULL SUCI parameter if the UE determines all SUCI parameters supported by the UE has been rejected by the network.
Kunz (20230262463), Nakagawa (20110280215).
Nair (20220038896) teaches receiving and forwarding/translating messages for supporting SUCI utilization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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 S 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
