DETAILED ACTION
Amendments submitted on September 15, 2025 are presented for examination by the examiner.
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 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.
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 .
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, found at http:/www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax, which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Applicant is also encouraged to contact the Examiner for an Interview, should the Applicant determine that clarifying and further illustrating the distinguishing features of the instant application may further the prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks applicant argues:
I) On page 7, Applicant argues that the 35 USC 112 Rejection should be withdrawn.
The claim amendments have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 Rejection; however, the claim amendments have also raised additional issues as shown below.
II) On pages 7-9, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the newly amended claim limitation of “generating a group key of a first communication group based on a first freshness parameter and an identifier (ID) of the first communication group by using a key derivation function”.
Applicant’s arguments are considered moot based on the new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
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 7 and 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 19 recite “the group KDF”; however, claims 6 and 18 recite “a group KDF algorithm”. It is unclear if these are referring to the same group KDF algorithm or different group KDF algorithms. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret these as referring to the same “group KDF algorithm”.
The examiner has cited particular examples of 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant check the claims for further 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections in the event that it was inadvertently missed by the examiner to advance prosecution.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109005539 (translation provided) hereinafter referred to as Northeastern in view of Zhang (US 2014/0233736) and further in view of Wager (US 2015/0092942.
As per claim 1, Northeastern discloses A communication method, comprising:
receiving an association request message from a second node (Northeastern, Detailed Ways Steps 1 - 2-2 on page 5, teaches receiving a message request.);
generating a group key of a first communication group … wherein the first communication group is a communication group to which the second node belongs (Northeastern, Detailed Ways Steps 2-2 - 2-3 on page 5, teaches generating symmetric key ka as the group key.);
encrypting, based on a shared key between a first node and the second node, the group key of the first communication group to obtain a first protection key (Northeastern, Detailed Ways Step 2-4 on page 5, teaches encrypting the group key with a session key.); and
sending a first association establishment message to the second node, wherein the first association establishment message comprises the first protection key (Northeastern, Detailed Ways Steps 2-4 – 2-5 on page 5, teaches sending the encrypted group key to the vehicle node.)
However, Northeastern does not specifically teach “generating a group key of the first communication group based on … an identifier (ID) of the first communication group …”.
Zhang discloses generating a group key of the first communication group based on … an identifier (ID) of the first communication group … (Zhang, paragraph 8, teaches generating the group key using the group ID.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Northeastern. Northeastern teaches generating a group key. Zhang teaches generating the group key based on the group ID. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the group key of Northeastern to be generated based on the group ID as this would have been a simple substitution of one known form of group key generation for another to yield the predictable results of generating the group key.
However, Northeastern in view of Zhang does not specifically teach “generating a group key of the first communication group based on a first freshness parameter … by using a key derivation function”.
Wager discloses generating a group key of the first communication group based on a first freshness parameter … by using a key derivation function (Wager, paragraph 85, teaches generating a key using a freshness parameter and a key derivation function.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Wager with the teachings of Northeastern in view of Zhang. Northeastern in view of Zhang teaches generating a group key based on the group ID. Wager teaches generating the group key based on a freshness parameter and a key derivation function. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the group key to be generated based on the group ID as well as the freshness parameter and key derivation function as this would have added in additional security by generating the key using multiple parameters.
As per claims 6 and 18, Northeastern in view of Zhang and Wager discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining a group security algorithm, wherein the group security algorithm is an algorithm supported by nodes in the first communication group, the group security algorithm comprising at least one of a group encryption algorithm, a group integrity protection algorithm, and/or a group KDF algorithm, and wherein the first association establishment message further comprises information used to indicate the group security algorithm (Zhang, Figure 2 and associated texts, teaches sharing the group integrity algorithm and the group encryption algorithm between nodes.)
As per claims 8 and 20, Northeastern in view of Zhang and Wager discloses wherein before the encrypting the group key of the first communication group, to obtain a protection key, the method further comprises: confirming that encryption is not enabled for a signaling plane message between the first node and the second node (Northeastern, Detailed Ways on page 5, teaches receiving a message request to start the encryption process. Therefore, the data is not encrypted beforehand. Also, the vehicles are not in the VANET prior so the data could not have been encrypted beforehand.)
As per claim 14, Northeastern in view of Zhang and Wager discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
sending, by the second node, an association request message to the first node (Northeastern, Detailed Ways Steps 1 - 2-2 on page 5, teaches sending/receiving a message request.);
receiving, by the second node, a first association establishment message from the first node (Northeastern, Detailed Ways Steps 2-4 – 2-5 on page 5, teaches sending/receiving the encrypted group key to the vehicle node.); and
obtaining, by the second node, the group key of the first communication group based on the shared key between the first node and the second node and the first protection key (Northeastern, Detailed Ways Steps 2-2 - 2-3 on page 5, teaches generating symmetric key ka as the group key. Zhang, paragraph 8, teaches generating the group key using the group ID.)
Claims 2-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and further in view of Asano (US 2003/0140227).
As per claims 2 and 15, Northeastern in view of Zhang and Wager discloses wherein the encrypting, based on the shared key between the first node and the second node, the group key of the first communication group to obtain a first protection key comprises: encrypting, based on the shared key between the first node and the second node …, the group key of the first communication group to obtain the first protection key (Northeastern, Detailed Ways Step 2-4 on page 5, teaches encrypting the group key with a session key.)
However, Northeastern in view of Zhang and Wager does not specifically teach “encrypting, based on the shared key between the first node and the second node and a second freshness parameter”.
Asano discloses encrypting, based on the shared key between the first node and the second node and a second freshness parameter (Asano, paragraph 185-187, teaches generating a session key using a random number. Therefore, when the group key of Northeastern is encrypted with the session key it is also encrypted based on the random number.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Asano with the teachings of Northeastern in view of Zhang and Wager. Northeastern in view of Zhang and Wager teaches generating a session key. Asano teaches generating the session key based on a random number. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the session key of Northeastern to be generated based on a random number as this would have been a simple substitution of one known form of session key generation for another to yield the predictable results of generating the session key. Additionally, this would add additional randomness to the session key and make it more secure.
As per claims 3 and 16, Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Asano discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the shared key is an encryption key between the first node and the second node, the second freshness parameter is a number, and the first association establishment message comprises the second freshness parameter (Asano, paragraph 185-187, teaches generating a session key using a random number, encrypting the random number and the session key, and transmitting to the other node. Northeastern, Detailed Ways Steps 2-4 – 2-5 on page 5, teaches encrypting the group key with a session key and sending the encrypted group key to the vehicle node.)
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, Asano, and further in view of Rule (US 2020/0106617) and Zhang (US 2020/0235914) hereinafter referred to as Zhang 2.
As per claims 4 and 17, Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Asano discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the second freshness parameter is a value …, and wherein … encrypting the group key of the first communication group based on the shared key (Asano, paragraph 185-187, teaches generating a session key using a random number. Northeastern, Detailed Ways Step 2-4 on page 5, teaches generating a session key and encrypting the group key with the session key.)
However, Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Asano does not specifically teach “wherein the second freshness parameter is a value of a first counter,”.
Rule discloses wherein the second freshness parameter is a value of a first counter, and wherein the first counter is used to represent a quantity of times for encrypting the group key of the first communication group based on the shared key (Rule, paragraphs 8-9, teaches generating a session key based on a counter that is updated for each transaction.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Rule with the teachings of Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Asano. Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Asano teaches generating a session key. Rule teaches generating the session key based on a counter. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the session key of Northeastern to be generated based on a counter as this would have been a simple substitution of one known form of session key generation for another to yield the predictable results of generating the session key.
However, Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, Asano, and Rule does not specifically teach “wherein the first counter is used to represent a quantity of times for encrypting the group key of the first communication group based on the shared key”.
Zhang 2 discloses wherein the first counter is used to represent a quantity of times for encrypting the [data] (Zhang 2, paragraph 105, teaches a counter that is incremented each time an encryption is performed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Zhang 2 with the teachings of Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, Asano, and Rule. Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, Asano, and Rule teaches generating a session key based on a counter. Zhang 2 teaches a counter that is incremented each time an encryption is performed. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the counter of Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, Asano, and Rule to be the counter of Zhang 2 as this would have been a simple substitution of one known counter for another to yield the predictable results of generating the session key using a counter.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and further in view of Chow (US 2002/0154782).
As per claim 9, Northeastern in view of Zhang and Wager discloses The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising: determining a first key based on at least one of a third freshness parameter and the identifier ID of the first communication group; encrypting, based on the shared key between the first node and the second node, the first key to obtain a second protection key; and sending a … message to the second node, wherein the … message comprises the second protection key (See Rejection for claim 1 above that shows generating the group key as shown in Northeastern page 5 Steps 1 – 2-5. It would have been obvious to use the same steps to generate the new group key when it is time to update the group key as shown in Chow below.)
However, Northeaster in view of Zhang and Wager does not specifically teach updating the group key.
Chow discloses determining that a condition for updating the group key of the first communication group is met; and sending a key update message … (Chow, paragraphs 41-42, teaches generating a new group key if the group key expires.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Chow with the teachings of Northeastern in view of Zhang and Wager. Northeastern in view of Zhang and Wager teaches generating a group key. Chow teaches generating a new group key when the old group key expires. Therefore, it would have been obvious to update the group key of Northeastern when the group key expires as this would allow encrypted communications to continue after the old key has expired. Additionally, updating the group key periodically would increase the security by preventing an attacker from obtaining and using the old group key.
As per claim 10, Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Chow discloses The method according to claim 9, wherein the key update message is further used to indicate start time of the first key (Chow, paragraph 41, teaches the group key having a start time.)
As per claim 11, Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Chow discloses The method according to claim 10, wherein after the sending the key update message to the second node, the method further comprises: determining that an update acknowledgment message from at least one second node that belongs to the first communication group is received; and applying the first key at the start time of the first key (Chow, paragraph 41, teaches the nodes receiving the new group key that has a start time to give all of the nodes enough time to receive the new group key before the new group key takes effect.)
As per claim 13, Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Chow discloses The method according to claim 9, wherein the condition for updating the group key of the first communication group comprises: a difference between a frame number of a current communication frame and a marked frame number is greater than or equal to a first threshold, wherein the frame number of the current communication frame and the marked frame number are in a same round of a counting cycle, and the marked frame number is a frame number on which a key update needs to be performed or the marked frame number is a frame number of a communication frame encrypted for the first time by using the group key of the first communication group; a difference between the marked frame number and the frame number of the current communication frame is less than or equal to a second threshold, wherein the frame number of the current communication frame is in a next round of the counting cycle of the marked frame number, and the marked frame number is a frame number on which the key update needs to be performed or the marked frame number is a frame number of a communication frame encrypted for the first time by using the group key of the first communication group; a validity period of the group key of the first communication group expires or use duration of the group key of the first communication group reaches a third threshold; or the at least one second node in the first communication group leaves the first communication group (Chow, paragraphs 41-42, teaches generating a new group key if the group key expires.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, Chow, and further in view of Asano.
As per claim 12, Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Chow discloses The method according to claim 9, wherein the encrypting, based on the shared key between the first node and the second node, the first key to obtain the second protection key comprises: encrypting, based on the shared key between the first node and the second node …, the first key to obtain the second protection key (Northeastern, Detailed Ways Step 2-4 on page 5, teaches encrypting the group key with a session key.)
However, Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Chow does not specifically teach “encrypting, based on the shared key between the first node and the second node and a fourth freshness parameter”.
Asano discloses encrypting, based on the shared key between the first node and the second node and a second freshness parameter (Asano, paragraph 185-187, teaches generating a session key using a random number. Therefore, when the group key of Northeastern is encrypted with the session key it is also encrypted based on the random number.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Asano with the teachings of Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Chow. Northeastern in view of Zhang, Wager, and Chow teaches generating a session key. Asano teaches generating the session key based on a random number. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the session key of Northeastern to be generated based on a random number as this would have been a simple substitution of one known form of session key generation for another to yield the predictable results of generating the session key. Additionally, this would add additional randomness to the session key and make it more secure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 is objected to as being allowable, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as overcoming the 35 USC 112 Rejections. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the limitation, inter alia, “wherein the group security algorithm comprises the group KDF, and the method further comprises: generating a session key of the first communication group by using the group KDF, wherein the session key of the first communication group is generated based on the group key of the first communication group and a key type for the session key of the first communication group". The closest prior art of record includes:
Northeastern (CN 109005539) – teaches generating a symmetric key as a group key.
Zhang (US 2014/0233736) – teaches generating a group key based on a group ID.
Wager (US 2015/0092942) – teaches generating a key using a freshness parameter and a key derivation function.
Asano (US 2003/0140227) – teaches generating a session key using a random number.
Rule (US 2020/0106617) – teaches generating a session key based on a counter that is updated for each transaction.
Zhang 2 (US 2020/0235914) – teaches a counter is incremented each time an encryption is performed.
Chow (US 2002/0154782) – teaches generating a new group key if the group key expires.
However, the combination of limitations as currently claimed cannot be found in the cited prior art of record.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Mizutani (US 2006/0155981), paragraphs 113-114, teaches updating the group key upon the expiration of the key validity term.
Liu (US 2009/0150668), paragraph 66, teaches updating the group key when the key expires or when a group member leaves the group.
Patel (US 6249867) generates a random number as the session key, encrypts the session key (random number) and identification number and sends to the other node.
Hori (US 2002/0184513) generates a session key using a random number.
Wang (US 11997213) generates a session key based on counter and the counter is incremented each time the cryptogram is generated.
Osborn (US 10581611) teaches generating a session key based on a counter that is updated for each transaction.
Norrman (US 2011/0055566) – teaches generating a key using a freshness parameter.
Li (US 2020/0137643) – teaches generating a key using a freshness parameter and a key identifier that is used to identify a key.
Conclusion
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 JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights