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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 09/19/2025.
In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 4, 15 and 30 have been amended; claims 8-9, 11-14, and 21-22, 24-25, and 27 have been cancelled, claims 30-35 have been added, and claims 1, 15, and 30 are independent claims. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 15-16, 18-20 and 30-35 have been examined and are pending in this application. This Action is made Final
In light of Applicant’s amendments, objection to the specification and the 112 b rejection have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/11/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 09/19/2025 with respect to claims 1, 15, and 30 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, which were necessitated by amendment.
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 1-2, 15-16, 20, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0306048 A1; Hereinafter “Dunn”) in view of Muller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0143466 A1; Hereinafter “Muller”) and He et al. (C.N. App. No. 108111244 A; Hereinafter “He”).
As per claims 1 15, and 30, Dunn teaches a second device (receiving device 400) comprising (Dunn: fig. 4 and 7 para[74-75], “FIG. 4 illustrates receiving device 400 for receiving a radio signal transmitted by a transmitting device such as transmitting device 300”):
a receiver (Dunn: para[75], “Receiving device 400 includes receiver 402”);
a transmitter (Dunn: para[75], “Receiving device 400 includes...transmitter 406”);
a master clock (Dunn: para[75], “receiving device 400 includes clock 408”); and
a processor configured to (Dunn: para[75], “Receiving device 400 includes…processor 404”):
control the receiver to receive a signal from a first device (transmitting device 300 of fig. 3), the signal including a component based on a slave clock (slave clock 310 of transmitting device 300, see fig. 3 and para[63-67]) of the first device (Dunn: para[74-80], “Receiver 402 receives radio signals sent by one or more transmitting devices, such as transmitting device 300. The received signals include messages formatted in accordance with a standard GNSS message…a message formatted in accordance with a standard GNSS message may include a PRBS code and a navigation message” Para[80], “a received signal includes a PRBS code encoded on the carrier signal.”);
authenticate the signal by comparing the component with a master signal, the master signal being based on the master clock (Dunn: para[80], “the IF signal generated by receiver 402 undergoes acquisition and correlation processes, which allow receiving device 400 to lock onto received radio signals and to determine time and timing information….Receiver 400 locks into the received message by generating and shifting (in time) one or more PRBS codes and comparing the generated code with the demodulated data from the received signal.”);
if the signal is authenticated, perform an operation based on the signal (Dunn: para[80-85]“the IF signal generated by receiver 402 undergoes acquisition and correlation processes, which allow receiving device 400 to lock onto received radio signals and to determine time and timing information…The synchronized timing information generated by processor 404 is communicated to connected end-user devices or systems, such as critical infrastructure installations. For example, where receiving device 400 is co-located with a power monitoring unit (PMU) for monitoring a portion of a power grid, the timing information may be communicated to the PMU, providing it with accurate and precise time, timing, and frequency information synchronized to the time standard.”).
Dunn does not explicitly teach if a drift in synchronization between the slave clock and the master clock is within a threshold, the signal is authenticated, and if the signal is authenticated, the processor is configured to perform an operation based on the signal; and if the drift is greater than the threshold, the signal is not authenticated, and if the signal is not authenticated the processor is configured to perform a further authentication process including controlling the transmitter to transmit a challenge signal to the first device and control the receiver to receive a challenge response from the first device, and if the further authentication process is successful, perform an operation based on either the signal or a further received signal received from the first device, wherein the processor is configured to control the transmitter to transmit a resynchronization signal based on the master clock to the first device for the resynchronization of the slave clock either as at least a part of the challenge signal or as a further transmitted signal transmitted to the first device.
However in the related art Muller teaches if the signal is not authenticated, perform a further authentication process including controlling the transmitter to transmit a challenge signal to the first device and control the receiver to receive a challenge response from the first device (Muller: para[13-25], [60-61], “A challenge response scheme is used to authenticate a unit. A valid pair of units share the same secret link key. A first unit produces a random number and challenges a second unit to authenticate itself by supplying the random number to it. The second unit returns the result of a function which takes as its arguments the BLUETOOTH ID of the second unit, the received random number and the key associated with the first unit but stored in the second unit. The first unit uses the same function to produce a result which if it equals the result received from the second unit authenticates the second device. The function in the first unit takes as its arguments the BLUETOOTH ID of the second unit which has been previously obtained, the random number and the key associated with the second unit but stored in the first unit. The authentication procedure occurs in the Link Layer of each unit.”), and if the further authentication process is successful, perform an operation based on either the signal or a further received signal received from the first device (Muller: para[13-25], [60-61], “Once authentication has been successfully completed access to the protocol layer, services and applications in the unit is unrestricted.”),
wherein the processor is configured to control the transmitter to transmit a resynchronization signal based on the master clock to the first device for the resynchronization of the slave clock either as at least a part of the challenge signal or as a further transmitted signal transmitted to the first device (Muller: para[09-12], “The synchronizer accepts those received radio packets with Access Codes which correspond to the expected Access Codes and rejects those received radio packets with Access Codes that do not correspond to the expected Access Code. A sliding correlation is used to identify the presence and the start of the expected Access Code in a radio packet. If the radio packet is accepted then the radio packet is supplied to the header decoder 54 as signal 55 and a confirmation signal 79 is returned to the controller 60 indicating that the packet has been accepted by the synchronizer 52. The confirmation signal 79 is used by the controller in a slave unit to resynchronize the slave clock to the master clock”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have update Dunn with the challenge response authentication process of Muller, it will protect against Eavesdropping and ensure that the signal is not spoofed or tempered (Muller: para [25]).
Dunn in view of Muller does not explicitly teach if a drift in synchronization between the slave clock and the master clock is within a threshold, the signal is authenticated, and if the signal is authenticated, the processor is configured to perform an operation based on the signal; and if the drift is greater than the threshold, the signal is not authenticated, and if the signal is not authenticated the processor is configured to perform a further authentication process.
However, in the related art, He teaches if a drift in synchronization between the slave clock and the master clock is within a threshold, the signal is authenticated, and if the signal is authenticated, the processor is configured to perform an operation based on the signal (He: fig. 9 step 901-909, “the master clock node sends the time-lapse disposal time corresponding to said slave clock node and the synchronous clock signal to the slave clock node…the master clock node calculates the difference between the signal feedback time and the signal transmission time of the slave clock node corresponds, as the slave clock node corresponding to the verification time. if the verification time corresponding to each one of said slave clock node of the verification condition is satisfied…..wherein the verification condition is as follows: corresponding to each one of said slave clock node verification time is the same, or the difference between the time corresponding to each one of said slave clock node does not exceed the preset threshold value”); and
if the drift is greater than the threshold, the signal is not authenticated, and if the signal is not authenticated the processor is configured to perform a further authentication process (He: fig. 9 step 901-909, “if each of the slave clock node corresponding to the authentication time does not satisfy the verification condition, returning to step 903..” “step 903: the master clock node measures the signal between the master clock node from the clock node passed through by the transmission time, determining the slave clock node corresponding to the signal transmission time. wherein the measuring signal between the master clock node from the clock node passed through by the transmission time, can be returned by the synchronous clock signal to the slave clock node and the slave clock node is the feedback clock signal of the master clock node, calculating the signal between the master clock node from the clock node passed through by the transmission time. In addition, the determining of the slave clock node corresponding to the signal transmission time, a statistical analysis multiple times ..”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the synchronization-based authentication scheme of Dunn to further perform additional authentication process when the drift or synchronization offset between the slave and the master clock exceed a thresholds, as taught by He, it will improve the system security and reliability by allowing secondary verification when the initial timing-based authentication fails due to clock drift (He: page 1).
As per claims 2, 16, and 31, Dunn in view of Muller and He teaches the independent claim 1. Muller teaches wherein, if the signal is authenticated or the further authentication process is successful, the processor is configured to control the transmitter to transmit an acknowledgement signal to the first device, wherein the acknowledgement signal includes a resynchronization signal based on the master clock for the resynchronization of the slave clock (Muller: para[09-12], “If the radio packet is accepted then the radio packet is supplied to the header decoder 54 as signal 55 and a confirmation signal 79 is returned to the controller 60 indicating that the packet has been accepted by the synchronizer 52. The confirmation signal 79 is used by the controller in a slave unit to resynchronize the slave clock to the master clock”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have update Dunn with the challenge response authentication process of Muller, it will protect against Eavesdropping and ensure that the signal is not spoofed or tempered (Muller: para [25]).
Claims 4-7, 18-20, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. (U.S. 20160306048 A1; Hereinafter “Dunn”) in view of Muller et al. (U.S. 20060143466 A1; Hereinafter “Muller”), He et al. (C.N. App. No. 108111244 A; Hereinafter “He”), and Reddy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0287418 A1; Hereinafter “Reddy”).
As per claims 4, 18, and 32, Dunn in view of Muller and He teaches the independent claim 1.
Dunn in view of Muller and He does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to control the receiver to receive data from the remote device, and to perform the operation based on the signal using the received data.
However, in the related art, Reddy teaches wherein the processor is configured to control the receiver to receive data from the remote device, and to perform the operation based on the signal using the received data (Reddy: para[89-94], “FIG. 9 illustrates an embodiment wherein a portion of a data packet transmission received 901 from a remote device is blocked, for example a transmission from a remote or potential Slave device. The received transmission may be a response to a query by a potential Master device (e.g., 408 in FIG. 4 or FIG. 7). Information is extracted to determine a frequency hopping sequence so that the Master may target hopping frequencies to establish a connection over a physical channel 905.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have update the modified Dunn with Reddy, it will provide a secure way for communicating parties to authenticate themselves to each other without the risk of an eavesdropper (Reddy: para [20]).
As per claims 5, 19, and 33, Dunn in view of Muller, He and Reddy teaches the dependent claim 4. Muller teaches wherein the processor is configured to control the receiver to receive the data in the signal from the first device (Muller: para[12], [57-60], “The synchronizer accepts those received radio packets with Access Codes which correspond to the expected Access Codes…The header decoder 54 decodes the header in the received packet and supplies it to the controller 60 as header signal 75. The header decoder 54, when enabled by a payload acceptance signal 77 supplied by the controller 60, produces a data output signal 57 containing the remainder of the radio packet, the payload 38”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have update Dunn with the challenge response authentication process of Muller, it will protect against Eavesdropping and ensure that the signal is not spoofed or tempered (Muller: para [25]).
As per claims 6 and 34, Dunn in view of Muller, He and Reddy teaches the dependent claim 4. Reddy teaches wherein the processor is configured to control the receiver to receive the data after the challenge response from the first device, wherein the further received signal is separate to and after the challenge response (Reddy: para [86-87], fig. 8, “upon receipt by the Master of an FHS packet, a sequence leading to determining K.sub.init is undertaken, authentication takes place, and then the devices continue through sequences that include establishing a suite of hopping frequencies to remain on during subsequent communications. Whether the data packets 812 through 822 inclusive are exchanged will depend on whether the key negotiation/authentication sequences led to the establishment of frequency hopping sequences for device communication”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have update the modified Dunn with Reddy, it will provide a secure way for communicating parties to authenticate themselves to each other without the risk of an eavesdropper (Reddy: para [20]).
As per claims 7 and 35, Dunn in view of Muller, He and Reddy teaches the dependent claim 4. Reddy teaches wherein the processor is configured to control the receiver to receive the data in the challenge response, wherein the challenge response comprises the further received signal (Reddy: para[89-94], “an interface to receive data from a challenge-response authentication interaction between the first device and second device the challenge-response authentication using the initial link key.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have update the modified Dunn with Reddy, it will provide a secure way for communicating parties to authenticate themselves to each other without the risk of an eavesdropper (Reddy: para [20]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 103236896 A, a secure control system of high-speed train, in order to realize clock synchronization, need to standards other than adding additional special hardware synchronous signal wire by a dedicated hardware synchronous clock realizing device on the signal line between the clock synchronous..
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYDIA L NOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571)-270-5143. 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.
/L.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437