DETAILED ACTION
In response to the communication filed on election filed on 10/20/2025, responded in following.
On this Office Action, claims 1-11, consisting of independent claim 1.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under the 35 USC § 103.
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is based on the assertion that the method and system are sufficiently related such that examination of one would not presents an undue burden relative to the other.
This argument is not found persuasive because the apparatus claims (Group I) and method claims (Group II) are directed to patentably distinct inventions requiring different fields of search. Specifically Group I is directed to PHY-layer interleaver hardware architecture, whereas Group II is directed to temporal key-policy and operational sequencing methods. Examination of one would not reasonably encompass the other and would impose a serious search burden.
Accordingly, the requirement is deemed proper and is made FINAL. Claims 12-20 remain non-elected and withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
The benefit of 62/680,641 filed on 06/05/2018 has been acknowledged.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted that the applicant filed a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 (c) and 1.78 (e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for benefit, and USPTO granted the petition on 04/29/2025. As a result, the effective filing date was adjusted based on the corrected ADS, and Dandekar et al. (US 20190373458 A1) is no longer prior art to the present application. Therefore, the previously applied 102 rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration of the claims in view of the adjusted effective filing data, a new ground of rejection is made. This is Non-Final Office Action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkovich (US 20060120311 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20060204009 A1, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, (Previously presented) Berkovich discloses a wireless communications security system that secures communication between at least two parties comprises:
a transmitter that transmits a packet (Berkovich: [0043] an interleaving method may begin with block 402, wherein an interleaver receives content to be transmitted. … [0050] In block 408, the interleaved content is presented to subsequent elements 310-318 of transmitter 300 for processing in the generation of a multi-carrier communication channel, 206 (“transmitting a packet”)),
the transmitter including an interleaver that receives ordered data to be transmitted and converts (Berkovich: [0043] In block 404, the interleaver (306) may interleave the content using an extended interval. For purposes of illustration, and not limitation, consider the following representation of an encoded bit stream: A, B, C, D, . . . , L (“ordered data”)), according to a mapping, the ordered data to interleaved data to be sent in the packet (Berkovich: [0043-0044] As introduced above, an interleaver (306) may receive an FEC encoded bit stream 304 from an encoder 302. In block 404, more particularly, the interleaver (306) may partition the received encoded bit stream into a columnar format of N rows by M columns, wherein the columnar format is generated by reading data into the format on a row-wise basis (“the ordered data to interleaved data according to a mapping”); [0048] In block 406, for transmitter architectures that generate two or more spatial streams (e.g., a MIMO implementation), the interleaver (306) may utilize frequency rotation between the interleaved data generated for the disparate spatial streams (“the ordered data to interleaved data according to a mapping”)); and
a receiver that receives the packet, the receiver including a de-interleaver that de-interleaves, according to the mapping, the interleaved data into ordered data (Berkovich: [0051] With reference now to FIG. 5, a flow chart of an example method for receive processing a multi-carrier signal generated according to FIG. 4 is presented, according to one example embodiment. In accordance with the example embodiment of FIG. 5, the method begins with block 502, wherein a receiver (330) receives one or more instances of one or more spatial streams generated by a remote transmitter (e.g., 300) via one or more receive antenna(e) (332A . . . N); [0053] In block 506, a deinterleaver (342) receives content essentially appearing as provided above, in sequences (4) and/or (6), although the invention is not so limited. That is, in the case of a single spatial stream (e.g., a SISO implementation), the deinterleaver (342) may receive an interleaved data sequence according to sequence (4) above if the interleaver (306) employed an interval of 2 resulting in a frequency span of 25).
However, Berkovich does not teach “mapping is accessible at the receiver only on the condition that the receiver has a key.”
In a same field of endeavor, Li discloses the wireless communications security system that secures communication between at least two parties, wherein the mapping is accessible at the receiver only on the condition that the receiver has a key (Li: [0035-0036] The transmitter(s) may comprise … , and either or both of a secure scrambler and an interleaver operator. The secure scrambler scrambles the chip-level signal using a pseudo-random long code sequence that may be generated using an AES algorithm; The receiver(s) comprise a … , and either or both of a deinterleaver operator and a descrambler. The descrambler descrambles the scrambled chip-level signal to regenerate the chip-level signal; [0038] the inventors propose to encrypt the long code sequence by exploiting the advanced encryption standard (AES), and then scramble the chip-level signal with the encrypted long code sequence. The transmitter and the receiver share the common initial state of the long code sequence generator and the common secret encryption key (“the mapping is accessible at the receiver only on the condition that the receiver has a key”)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-carrier communication system disclosed by Berkovich with the teachings of Li to include mapping which is accessible at the receiver only on the condition that the receiver has a key. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the system may scramble and encrypts the chip-level signal using a long code sequence generated by the advanced encryption standard algorithm (para. 0017). Therefore, The transmitter circuit transmits the securely scrambled chip-level signal.
Regarding claim 2, (Previously presented) the combination of Berkovich and Li teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. Li discloses the wireless communications security system of claim 1, wherein the key is predetermined and generated at a transmitter physical (PHY) layer (Li: [0038] Based on the observation that the physical layer built-in security of CDMA systems mainly relies on the pseudo-random scrambling process, the inventors propose to encrypt the long code sequence by exploiting the advanced encryption standard (AES), and then scramble the chip-level signal with the encrypted long code sequence. The transmitter and the receiver share the common initial state of the long code sequence generator and the common secret encryption key (“key is predetermined and generated”)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-carrier communication system disclosed by Berkovich with the teachings of Li to include a predetermined key which is generated at the transmitter PHY layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the system may scramble and encrypts the chip-level signal using a long code sequence generated by the advanced encryption standard algorithm (para. 0017). Therefore, The transmitter circuit transmits the securely scrambled chip-level signal.
Regarding claim 3, (Original) the combination of Berkovich and Li teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. Li discloses the wireless communications security system of claim 2,
wherein the key is generated using a channel state that is estimated independently at the transmitter and the receiver based on other packets exchanged between the transmitter and the receiver (Li: [0038] the inventors propose to encrypt the long code sequence by exploiting the advanced encryption standard (AES), and then scramble the chip-level signal with the encrypted long code sequence. The transmitter and the receiver share the common initial state of the long code sequence generator and the common secret encryption key (“key is generated using a channel state”)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-carrier communication system disclosed by Berkovich with the teachings of Li to include key generated using a channel state that is estimated independently at the transmitter and the receiver based on other packets exchanged between the transmitter and the receiver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the system may scramble and encrypts the chip-level signal using a long code sequence generated by the advanced encryption standard algorithm (para. 0017). Therefore, The transmitter circuit transmits the securely scrambled chip-level signal.
Regarding claim 4, (Original) the combination of Berkovich and Li teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. Li discloses the wireless communications security system of claim 3, wherein the channel state is used to generate bits based on a channel symmetry that forms the key (Li: [0038] The transmitter and the receiver share the common initial state of the long code sequence generator and the common secret encryption key (“symmetry”, in the art, An AES secret key is a shared, secret string of bits (128, 192, or 256 bits long) used in the Symmetric Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) to both encrypt (scramble) and decrypt (unscramble) data) and para.[0050] defies a key size equal to 128 bits).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-carrier communication system disclosed by Berkovich with the teachings of Li to include a channel state which is used to generate bits based on a channel symmetry that forms the key. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the system may scramble and encrypts the chip-level signal using a long code sequence generated by the advanced encryption standard algorithm (para. 0017). Therefore, The transmitter circuit transmits the securely scrambled chip-level signal.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkovich (US 20060120311 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20060204009 A1, hereinafter “Li”) as applied to claims above, and further in view of DARMON et al. (US 20190028266 A1, hereinafter “DARMON”).
Regarding claim 5, (Previously presented) the combination of Berkovich and Li teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. However, the combination does not teach, DARMON, in a same field of endeavor, discloses the wireless communications security system of claim 4,
wherein the bits are placed into a shift registry until an occurrence of an event, upon which a current key is generated and saved to a memory (DARMON: [0034] The random string of bits may undergo further manipulation in order to add additional entropy to the system. By way of example, the random string of bits may be processed through a shift register (not depicted), which may comprise a linear-feedback shift register prior to being stored as the first encryption key 140).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-carrier communication system disclosed by Berkovich with the teachings of DARMON to include bits are placed into a shift registry until the occurrence of an event, upon which a current key is generated and saved to a memory. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the system may transform simple seed value into a complex, pseudo-random sequence, enhancing security and hardware efficiency. Therefore, the transmitter circuit transmits the securely scrambled chip-level signal.
Regarding claim 8, (Original) the combination of Berkovich, Li and DARMON teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. DARMON further disclose the wireless communications security system of claim 5, wherein the current key becomes the key (DARMON: [0031] changing the value of the CurrentKey flag, so that, KEY_0 becomes KEY_1, and accordingly, a new KEY_0 is generated).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-carrier communication system disclosed by Berkovich with the teachings of DARMON to include a current key becomes the key. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the system may the provide one of either the first encryption key or the second encryption key to the decryption functions (para. 0029). Therefore, each flag associated with each one register in the register file indicates whether the one register in the register file is encrypted according to the first encryption key or the second encryption key.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkovich (US 20060120311 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20060204009 A1, hereinafter “Li”) in view of DARMON et al. (US 20190028266 A1, hereinafter “DARMON”) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Nakanishi (US 20190132195 A1).
Regarding claim 6, (Original) the combination of Berkovich, Li and DARMON teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. However, the combination does not teach, Nakanishi, in a same field of endeavor, discloses the wireless communications security system of claim 5, wherein the event is time-triggered based on an interrupt (Nakanishi: [0039] The timer circuit 112 includes, for example, a local clock, counts up or counts down the time of various timers, and transmits an interrupt request to the microprocessor 111 when the corresponding timer has expired. The RF circuit 114 performs a processing according to wireless communication, for example, a conversion of a wireless communication signal corresponding to a SIGFOX communication and an electric signal used within the terminal 1, and a frequency modulation. The RF circuit 114 is an example of a “transmitter”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-carrier communication system disclosed by Berkovich with the teachings of Nakanishi to include the event which is time-triggered based on an interrupt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because an interrupt request is input from the timer circuit to the microprocessor. The microprocessor may acquire a residual electric power amount of the first electricity storage device from the power supply control circuit (para. 0098). Therefore, the system may be necessary for return from the power saving state.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkovich (US 20060120311 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20060204009 A1, hereinafter “Li”) in view of DARMON et al. (US 20190028266 A1, hereinafter “DARMON”) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Leavy et al.(US 20190140832 A1, hereinafter “Leavy”).
Regarding claim 7, (Original) the combination of Berkovich, Li and DARMON teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. However, the combination does not teach, Leavy in a same field of endeavor discloses the wireless communications security system of claim 5, wherein the event is event-triggered based on a number of packets transmitted or received (Leavy: [0081] The triggering event may be the exchange of a predetermined number of packets or after a predetermined amount of time has elapsed).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-carrier communication system disclosed by Berkovich with the teachings of Leavy to include the event is event-triggered based on a number of packets transmitted or received. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the system may improve resource efficiency and reduce unnecessary data transmissions in networked systems, and lower computation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkovich (US 20060120311 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20060204009 A1, hereinafter “Li”) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Pahuja (US 20100027719 A1).
Regarding claim 11, (Previously presented) the combination of Berkovich, Li teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. However, the combination does not teach, Pahuja in a same field of endeavor discloses the wireless communications security system of claim 1, wherein the interleaving and de-interleaving are done within an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) pipeline (Pahuja: [0038] In each of the waveforms, the digital signal is modulated using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM). OFDM is a parallel modulation scheme in which the data stream modulates a large number of orthogonal subcarriers, which are transmitted simultaneously).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multi-carrier communication system disclosed by Berkovich with the teachings of Pahuja to include an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) pipeline. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because OFDM is inherently flexible, readily allowing the mapping of logical channels to different groups of subcarriers (para. 0038).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ELSCHNER (US 20180254899 A1): [0019] the secret key is generated using the determined impulse responses and/or transfer functions. For example, at least one pair of correlated bit sequences is generated using the determined impulse responses and/or transfer functions and the secret key is generated using the correlated bit sequences.
AVOINNE et al. (US 20140310503 A1) [0014] FIG. 2 shows an example of an implementation of the multi-channel memory unit 110. As shown, the memory unit includes a hash unit 130, a channel selection unit 132, a local DRAM address computation unit 134, and a demultiplexer 136. The hash unit receives system memory addresses and computes a hash value using the memory address to introduce a degree of randomness to the address. If a hash unit 130 is included in the memory unit, the memory address examined and processed by the channel selection unit 132 is the hashed address computed by the hash unit 130. If a hash unit 130 is not included, then, the memory address examined and processed by the channel selection unit 132 is the unhashed system address. Thus, all references herein to "memory address" or "system memory address" refer to either the input address to the hash unit or the hashed address output of the hash unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUH whose telephone number is (571)270-5524. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM- 5:00 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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/ANDREW SUH/Examiner, Art Unit 2493