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 .
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, 10 and 19, the applicant recites “to enable accurate replay detection by selecting an appropriate replay counter” which is indefinite as it is unclear how the detection is accurate as “appropriate is not defined within the claim language or the specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain if the replay counter is “appropriate.” Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies from the independent claims set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, 11, an 20, the applicant recites “to use the extended key ID mechanism when supported” which is indefinite as it is unclear how a system is supportive of the extended key mechanism. Does the system meet certain security requirements? Is it based on a client or server requirement?
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the applicant recites “the received PN,” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Likewise, the applicant recites “the value of the replay counter” which is unclear as there are two separate replay counters being executed.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the applicant recites “the receive reordering buffer,” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Furthermore, the applicant recites “the extended key ID mechanism when supported” which is indefinite as it is unclear how a system is supportive of the extended key mechanism. Does the system meet certain security requirements? Is it based on a client or server requirement?
Regarding claim 5 and 14, the applicant recites “discard all unfished fragments” which is indefinite as it is unclear what the fragments recite back to. Is it fragments of received frames? Fragments of MPUs? Has the installing already been instantiated? It is unclear how the installing of a new key is linked to the differentiation and comparison of the PNs to discard MPDUs.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the applicant recites “the receiver,” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Is this the receiver of the MPDUs or another party. Furthermore, the applicant recites “receive reordering before installing a new key,” which is indefinite as it unclear at what point in the process the installation or instantiation of a key install is linked to the replay counting of MPDUs.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the applicant recites “the receiver,” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Is this the receiver of the MPDUs or another party. Furthermore, the applicant recites as “responder” which examiner believes should recite “a responder” but it is unclear what the relation is between the receiver and responder.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the applicant recites “the operation,” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Is the operation the entirety of the replay counting or a single step within the process? Likewise, the applicant recites “the receiver,” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 9 and 18, the applicant recites “to ensure that no data MPDUs … are present…” which is an intended use. It is unclear how no data MPDUs are present. Likewise, the applicant recites “the receive reordering buffer,” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. . Furthermore, the applicant recites “receive reordering before installing a new key,” which is indefinite as it unclear at what point in the process the installation or instantiation of a key install is linked to the replay counting of MPDUs.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: It is recommended to the applicant to more clearly and concisely define the role of the originator and recipient within text of the claim language and further expand upon the use of the separate replay counters and how they are used for data frame replay detection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-14, and 18-20 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong et al (US2019/0097952) in view of Seok et al (US 2021/03683220).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Yong et al disclose a device, the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations and a method comprising[0157-0160]:
maintaining separate replay counters for each PTKSA to enable accurate replay detection by selecting an appropriate replay counter based on the differentiation of the MPDUs [0076] (the recipient may maintain separate replay counter per TID);
comparing Packet Numbers (PNs) of received frames with values of their corresponding replay counters [0076-0077, 0085] (the receiver may track the PN values);
discarding any MPDUs with PNs less than or equal to a value of the corresponding replay counter associated with a respective old or new PTKSA [0077, 0080, 0142, 0145] (detected replay packets may be discarded).
However, Yong et al does not expressly disclose but Seok et al discloses:
differentiating between MAC Protocol Data Units (MPDUs) associated with old and new Pairwise Transient Key Security Associations (PTKSAs) using either an Extended Key ID mechanism or decoding with an old or a new key [0082-0083] (an extended key mechanism is used for rekeying purposes such that a replay may be detected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to create the invention as claimed for the following reasons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yong et al by implementing a differentiation, for the purpose of rekeying, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Seok et al, see for example [0082-0084]. These modifications would result in ease of use and increased security, both of which are obvious benefits to the skilled artisan. Additionally, the cited references are in the field of computer security, as is the current application, and thus, are in analogous arts.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, Yong et al and Seok et al disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 19. Yong et al does not expressly disclose but Seok et al additionally discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to use the Extended Key ID mechanism when supported by a wireless communication system [0082-0083] (an extended key mechanism is used for rekeying purposes such that a replay may be detected).
The motivation to combine is the same as disclosed in point (19) above.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Yong et al and Seok et al disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Yong et al additionally discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to update the replay counter with the value of the received PN when the received PN is greater than the value of the replay counter [0076-0078] (an update may be provided for).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Yong et al and Seok et al disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Yong et al additionally discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to store the Key ID along with a received MPDU in the receive reordering buffer [0076-0080] (a scoreboard may be used to track which MPDUs have been received).
However, Yong et al does not expressly disclose but Seok et al discloses that an Extended Key ID mechanism is supported[0082-0083] (an extended key mechanism is used for rekeying purposes such that a replay may be detected).
The motivation to combine is the same as disclosed in point (19) above.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Yong et al and Seok et al disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Yong et al a does not expressly disclose but Seok et al additionally discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to discard all unfinished fragments before installing a new key [0030-0034] (a key confirmation must happen before installation).
The motivation to combine is the same as disclosed in point (19) above.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Yong et al and Seok et al disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Yong et al additionally discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to ensure that no data MPDUs belonging to the new PTKSA are present in the receive reordering buffer before installing a new key [0056] (no PN is repeated).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 15 and 17 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong et al (US2019/0097952) in view of Seok et al (US 2021/03683220) and in further view of Liu et al (US 2011/0055558).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Yong et al and Seok et al disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Yong et al and Seok et al do not expressly disclose but Liu et al additionally discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to discard Data MPDUs in an existing receive reordering buffer before installing a new key if the receiver cannot maintain two sets of replay counters for two PTKSAs [ 0123-0128, 0095] (MSDU priorities can be used during security establishment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to create the invention as claimed for the following reasons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yong et al and Seok et al by implementing a maintaining of the separate counters, for the purpose of rekeying, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Liu et al, see for example [0123-0128, 0095]. These modifications would result in ease of use and increased security, both of which are obvious benefits to the skilled artisan. Additionally, the cited references are in the field of computer security, as is the current application, and thus, are in analogous arts.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Yong et al and Seok et al disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Yong et al and Seok et al do not expressly disclose but Liu et al additionally discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to reassociate with a wireless communication system to restart the operation if the receiver cannot maintain two sets of replay counters for two PTKSAs [ 0123-0128, 0095] (MSDU priorities can be used during security establishment).
The motivation to combine is the same as disclosed in point (31) above.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong et al (US2019/0097952) in view of Seok et al (US 2021/0368322) and in further view of Saloni et al (US 2022/0038212).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Yong et al and Seok et al disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Yong et al and Seok et al do not expressly disclose but Saloni et al additionally discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform a delete block acknowledgment (DELBA) operation for all traffic identifiers (TIDs) with block acknowledgments (BAs) as responder when the receiver cannot maintain two sets of replay counters for two PTKSAs [0041-0049] (a DELBA request may be utilized and a BA policy with its parameters may be set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to create the invention as claimed for the following reasons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yong et al and Seok et al by implementing a DELBA operation, for the purpose of rekeying, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Saloni et al, see for example [0041-0049]. These modifications would result in ease of use and increased security, both of which are obvious benefits to the skilled artisan. Additionally, the cited references are in the field of computer security, as is the current application, and thus, are in analogous arts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al (US 2021/0050999): discloses security for multi-link operations. A multi-link device (MLD) may establish a first communication link between a first device of the MLD and a first device of a second MLD, and a second communication link between a second device of the MLD and a second device of the second MLD. The MLD may generate a group-addressed message. The MLD may protect the group-addressed message using a first key or a first integrity key.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDALL DOLLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/KENDALL DOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436