DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1.The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. According to applicant's arguments filed on 06/18/2026; claims 1 and 8-10 have been amended, and new claims 11-13 have been amended, hereby acknowledged.
3. Regarding 103 rejection, applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach the amended claim limitation of independent claims , which recites: “wherein the MAC key is generated by using a preset algorithm based on the first anonymous ID of the user, the first anonymous ID of the UAV, a first random number value generated by the user terminal, a second random number value generate by the UAV, and 0; and wherein the session key is generated by using the preset algorithm based on the first anonymous ID of the user, the first anonymous ID of the UAV, the first random number value, the second random number value, and 1”.
4 . Examiner would like to point out that, in claim 1, lines.17-23, recites: “wherein the MAC key is generated by using a preset algorithm based on the first anonymous ID of the user, the first anonymous ID of the UAV, a first random number value generated by the user terminal, a second random number value generate by the UAV, and 0, and wherein the session key is generated by using the preset algorithm based on the first anonymous ID of the user, the first anonymous ID of the UAV, the first random number value, the second random number value, and 1”.
It is not clear what does the number “0” and “1” denotes, and how it is being used to generate the keys. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required (see, the112 (b) rejection below).
Examiner Note: A rejection over prior art is not feasible at this time for claims 1,8,9 and 10. The claims 1,8,9 and 10 are replete with indefiniteness such that it cannot be ascertained as to what the scope of the claims are with respect to applying prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1,8,9 and 10 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.
7. In Claim 1 lines.17-23, recites: “wherein the MAC key is generated by using a preset algorithm based on the first anonymous ID of the user, the first anonymous ID of the UAV, a first random number value generated by the user terminal, a second random number value generate by the UAV, and 0, and
wherein the session key is generated by using the preset algorithm based on the first anonymous ID of the user, the first anonymous ID of the UAV, the first random number value, the second random number value, and 1.
It is not clear what does the number “0” and “1” denotes, and how it is being used to generate the keys. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
8. Similar problem is found in independent Claims 8,9 and 10, as such claims 8,9 and 10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112 (b).
9. Claims 4-7 and 11-13 are rejected because they depend on the rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
11. Claims 1, 8,9 and 10 as amended are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
12. Claim 1, recites: ““wherein the MAC key is generated by using a preset algorithm based on the first anonymous ID of the user, the first anonymous ID of the UAV, a first random number value generated by the user terminal, a second random number value generate by the UAV, and 0, and wherein the session key is generated by using the preset algorithm based on the first anonymous ID of the user, the first anonymous ID of the UAV, the first random number value, the second random number value, and 1”, the underlined portion constitutes new matter to the original disclosure.
This limitation is not supported by the specification as such is considered new matter.
13. Other independent claims 8,9 and 10 recites the same limitation as claim 1, therefore claims 8, 9 and 10 are also rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
14. Any claims not specially addressed above is being rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of a claim upon which it depends.
Double Patenting
15. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
16. Claims 1-2 and 4-10 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of the co-pending application 18/038,844. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application encompass the same subject matter as the co-pending application claims, but with obvious wording variations such as [a method of operating an electronic device that provides a key agreement protocol. The method may include obtaining at least one of an ID of user, a first anonymous ID of the user corresponding to the ID of the user and a first temporary authentication value of the user, from a user terminal, obtaining at least one of an ID of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), a first anonymous ID of the UAV corresponding to the ID of the UAV and a first temporary authentication value of the UAV, from the UAV, and in response to a key agreement request of the user terminal or a key agreement request of the UAV, intermediating key agreement between the UAV and the user terminal based on first information including information obtained from the user terminal and second information including information obtained from the UAV]. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEREENA T CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-0506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri : 7:30 AM-5 PM 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, Lynn Field can be reached on 571-272-2092. 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.
/DEREENA T CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights