DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 46-47 and 61 -62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0014966 A1, hereinafter, ‘Kim’ in view of Yu et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2018/0013685 A1, hereinafter, ‘Yu’.
Consider Claim 46 and 61, Kim teaches a method comprising: generating protocol data units (PDUs) in layer 2 (L2) (e.g., see at least paragraph 0404 “In order to enhance security, the first PDCP control PDU may perform ciphering or integrity protection”);performing security protection on a control PDU of the PDUs in L2 to obtain a protected control PDU for the control PDU, wherein the control PDU is in a sublayer lower than a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) layer(e.g., see at least paragraph 0404 “In order to enhance security, the first PDCP control PDU may perform ciphering or integrity protection”- see also figure 1h), and performing security protection on the control PDU includes: applying an integrity protection algorithm on the control PDU(e.g., see at least paragraph 0404 “In order to enhance security, the first PDCP control PDU may perform ciphering or integrity protection”).
However, Kim does not specifically teach determining a signature for the control PDU based on an output of the integrity protection algorithm; and assembling the protected control PDU by combining the control PDU with the determined signature; and outputting the protected control PDU for transmission
In analogous art, Yu teaches determining a signature for the control PDU based on an output of the integrity protection algorithm; and assembling the protected control PDU by combining the control PDU with the determined signature; and outputting the protected control PDU for transmission (e.g., see at least 0081, 0089 “...control packets may be integrity protected and/or ciphered for security (e.g., the control PDU may include a SN and/or signature). For example, an integrity protection signature may be included within the PDCP HFN PDU, the RLC HFN PDU or the MAC CE carrying the current hyper frame number... to enable retransmission and ciphering”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim to include determining a signature for the control PDU based on an output of the integrity protection algorithm; and assembling the protected control PDU by combining the control PDU with the determined signature; and outputting the protected control PDU for transmission to enable ciphering of the control message.
Consider Claims 47 and 62, Kim teaches the claimed invention except wherein assembling the protected control PDU comprises: adding a signature field to the protected control PDU wherein the signature is included in the signature field.
In analogous art, Yu teaches wherein assembling the protected control PDU comprises: adding a signature field to the protected control PDU wherein the signature is included in the signature field (e.g., see at least 0081, 0089 “...control packets may be integrity protected and/or ciphered for security (e.g., the control PDU may include a SN and/or signature). For example, an integrity protection signature may be included within the PDCP HFN PDU, the RLC HFN PDU or the MAC CE carrying the current hyper frame number... to enable retransmission and ciphering”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim to include wherein assembling the protected control PDU comprises: adding a signature field to the protected control PDU wherein the signature is included in the signature field to enable ciphering of the control message.
Claim(s) 48-52, and 63-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0014966 A1, hereinafter, ‘Kim’ in view of Yu et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2018/0013685 A1, hereinafter, ‘Yu’ and further in view of Kim et al US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0240094 A1, hereinafter, ‘Kim 2’.
Consider Claims 48 and 63, Kim as modified by Yu teaches the claimed invention except wherein inputs of the integrity protection algorithm include: a COUNT parameter; a DIRECTION parameter; a BEARER parameter; and an integrity protection key.
In analogous art, Kim2 teaches wherein inputs of the integrity protection algorithm include: a COUNT parameter; a DIRECTION parameter; a BEARER parameter; and an integrity protection key (e.g., see at least figures 1 and figure 1S).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim as modified by Yu to try wherein inputs of the integrity protection algorithm include: a COUNT parameter; a DIRECTION parameter; a BEARER parameter; and an integrity protection key for the purpose of integrity.
Consider Claims 49 and 64, Kim teaches wherein the protected control PDU is obtained by: applying a ciphering algorithm on the control PDU; and determining an output of the ciphering algorithm as the protected control PDU(e.g., see at least paragraph 0404 “In order to enhance security, the first PDCP control PDU may perform ciphering or integrity protection”).
Consider Claims 50 and 65, Kim as modified by Yu teaches the claimed invention except wherein inputs of the ciphering algorithm protection algorithm include: a COUNT parameter; a DIRECTION parameter; a BEARER parameter; and an integrity protection key.
In analogous art, Kim2 teaches wherein inputs of the ciphering algorithm include: a COUNT parameter; a DIRECTION parameter; a BEARER parameter; and an integrity protection key (e.g., see at least figures 1 and figure 1S).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim as modified by Yu to try wherein inputs of the ciphering algorithm include: a COUNT parameter; a DIRECTION parameter; a BEARER parameter; and an integrity protection key for the purpose of ciphering.
Consider Claims 51, Kim teaches wherein the COUNT parameter is a: a fixed COUNT value; a sequence number (SN) allocated in a lower layer; or a random value (e.g., see COUNT in at least 0279).
Consider Claim 52, Kim as modified by Yu teaches the claimed invention except wherein the BEARER parameter is: a fixed BEARER value; a control PDU type indication; or a value in a field of the control PDU.
In analogous art, Kim2 teaches wherein the BEARER parameter is: a fixed BEARER value; a control PDU type indication; or a value in a field of the control PDU (e.g., see at least 0313).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim as modified by Yu to try wherein the BEARER parameter is: a fixed BEARER value; a control PDU type indication; or a value in a field of the control PDU for the purpose of ciphering and integrity.
Consider Claim 55, Kim as modified by Yu teaches the claimed invention except wherein the control PDU is determined based on a rule that is associated with: a protection frequency in a PDU transmission; one protected control PDU being determined in one transmission in Uu interface; a protection period; a dynamic trigger; or a specified PDU type.
In analogous art, Kim2 wherein the control PDU is determined based on a rule that is associated with: a protection frequency in a PDU transmission; one protected control PDU being determined in one transmission in Uu interface; a protection period; a dynamic trigger; or a specified PDU type (e.g., see at least 0313 – see data protection method).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim as modified by Yu to try wherein the control PDU is determined based on a rule that is associated with: a protection frequency in a PDU transmission; one protected control PDU being determined in one transmission in Uu interface; a protection period; a dynamic trigger; or a specified PDU type or the purpose of ciphering and integrity.
Consider Claim 56, Kim as modified by Yu teaches the claimed invention except wherein the rule is configured by a network device of the wireless communication system.
In analogous art, Kim2 teaches wherein the rule is configured by a network device of the wireless communication system(e.g., see Network in at least 0313).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim as modified by Yu to try wherein the rule is configured by a network device of the wireless communication system(e.g., see at least 0313)for the purpose of ciphering and integrity.
Consider Claim 57, Kim as modified by Yu teaches the claimed invention except wherein the protected control PDU includes at least one bit indicating that the control PDU has been protected.
In analogous art, Kim2 teaches wherein the protected control PDU includes at least one bit indicating that the control PDU has been protected (e.g., see at least 0014 – “the MAC PDU further includes an indicator indicating that the at least one MAC subPDU is integrity protected”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim as modified by Yu to try wherein the protected control PDU includes at least one bit indicating that the control PDU has been protected for the purpose of ciphering and integrity.
Claim(s) 58 and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0240094 A1, hereinafter, ‘Kim’ in view of Yu et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2018/0013685 A1, hereinafter, ‘Yu’ and further in view of Da Silva et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0014921, hereinafter, ‘Da Silva’.
Consider Claims 58, Kim teaches the claimed invention except reporting, to a network device of the wireless communication system, an occurrence of a security problem.
However, in analogous art, Da Silva teaches (“in general, exemplary embodiments include procedures whereby when a UE detects a resume failure due to integrity verification failure, it compiles a resume failure report. When the UE later succeeds to connect to the network, it indicates to the network such a report is available”.- 0253).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include reporting, to a network device of the wireless communication system, an occurrence of a security problem for the purpose of integrity protection.
Consider Claim 60, Kim teaches triggering a UE connection reestablishment or master cell group (MCG)/secondary cell group (SCG) failure procedure (see reestablishment in 0309).
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0240094 A1, hereinafter, ‘Kim’ in view of Yu et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2018/0013685 A1, hereinafter, ‘Yu’ in view of Da Silva et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0014921, hereinafter, ‘Da Silva’ and further in view of Zhang et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0168614, hereinafter, ‘Zhang’.
Consider Claim 59, Kim and Da Silva teaches the claimed invention except transmitting recommendation information indicating a type of the control PDU to be protected.
In analogous art, Zhang teaches transmitting recommendation information indicating a type of the control PDU to be protected (e.g., see at least figures 2 and 0012 and 0161).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include transmitting recommendation information indicating a type of the control PDU to be protected for the purpose of integrity protection.
Claim(s) 53- 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0240094 A1, hereinafter, ‘Kim’ in view of Yu et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2018/0013685 A1, hereinafter, ‘Yu’ in view of Well Known art.
Consider Claims 53 and 54, Kim teaches the claimed invention except wherein the protected control PDU is obtained by: applying a HASH algorithm on the control PDU; and determining the protected control PDU based on an output of the HASH algorithm and wherein an input of the HASH algorithm is the control PDU and an additional random value.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that HASH algorithms are notoriously well known in the art and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a HASH algorithm to arrive at the predictive result wherein the protected control PDU is obtained by: applying a HASH algorithm on the control PDU; and determining the protected control PDU based on an output of the HASH algorithm and wherein an input of the HASH algorithm is the control PDU and an additional random value for the purpose of integrity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646