DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the claims filed on 07/08/2026.
Application No: 18/428,505.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note: The examiner has tried to contact applicant representative, but no response was received.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for claims 15-17 and 20, and hence the claims rejection is maintained. Claims 1-14 and 18-19 are allowable over prior arts.
Further (BRI), examiner would like to bring it to the attention of the applicant that during patent examination claim must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation (See MPEP 2111- 2111.01 ).
Further (Specification not read into the claims), "That claims are interpreted in light of the specification does not mean that everything in the specification must be read into the claims." Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 957, 220 USPQ 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 835 (1984).
Having said that, the request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance for claims 15-17 and 20, because:
Argument 1: Applicant argues (see remarks page 10, Claim 15) that “Neither Chen nor LiHe disclose a relay device that reconstructs data packets between different transmission systems.”
Response 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments. Applicant is arguing a limitation, which is not disclosed in the claim. There is no concept of Rarely Device clearly disclosed in the claim as a limitation. Applicant cannot bring specification into the claim as per MPEP (2164.08).
Further, claim is not clearly disclosing key inventive concept in clear language, namely,
Three-input authentication code generation where "first information" is structurally separate from the "first data” and “First key”. Claim is silent about these limitations (See remarks on page 8).
MPEP (2164.08):
In response to applicants’ argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Relay, First Key, First Data and First Information) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, Applicant arguments are not persuasive and hence the rejection of the independent claim 15 is maintained. Similar dependent claims (16-17) are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on the independent claims.
Argument 2: Applicant argues (see remarks page 11, Claim 20) that “ analogous to those advanced above for independent claim 15, Chen and LiHe do not disclose or suggest the features of independent claim 20.”
Response 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments. Similar to response as for claim 15, also apply for claim 20, specifically,
Applicant is arguing a limitation, which is not disclosed in the claim. There is no concept of Rarely Device clearly disclosed in the claim as a limitation. Applicant cannot bring specification into the claim as per MPEP (2164.08).
Further, claim is not clearly disclosing key inventive concept in clear language, namely,
Three-input authentication code generation where "first information" is structurally separate from the "first data” and “First key”. Claim is silent about these limitations (See remarks on page 8).
MPEP (2164.08):
In response to applicants’ argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Relay, First Key, First Data and First Information) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, Applicant arguments are not persuasive and hence the rejection of the independent claim 20 is maintained.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U. S. C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. (CN 106304046 A) in view of LiHe et al. (US 20200015079 A1).
Regarding claim 15, CHEN teaches a transmission method ([invention contents], e.g. Therefore, it is an object of the present invention is to provide a iBeacon broadcast message encryption and authentication method, which effectively prevents iBeacon in the existing technology base station (i.e. first device) broadcast message can be used by any person (i.e. a terminal device, a second device, a receiving device), and the iBeacon base station can be easily forged), comprising:
receiving, by a third device, at least one second data packet ([invention contents], e.g. the invention adds additional Bluetooth broadcast packets it sends a dynamic identifier in the Bluetooth broadcast packet other than the iBeacon original broadcast packet (ID), effectively solves the iBeacon base station by the third party (i.e. receiving by a third device). in the broadcast packet other than the iBeacon original broadcast packet sending dynamic change with time of message authentication code (Message Authentication Code) or digital signature),
generating, by the third device, a first data packet based on the at least one second data packet ([invention contents], e.g. 6) of the iBeacon base station an additional Bluetooth broadcast packet (i.e. establishing a communication connection for a broadcast message to scan devices), can be a BLE (Bluetooth (LowEnergy)) scanning device Passive Scanning obtained, also may be a scanning device (i.e. a third scan device) when Active Scanning Scan Response sent by the broadcast device broadcast packet. Scan Response broadcast packet only when the central device sending Scan Request (scan request) when using the ScanResponse broadcast packet sent, therefore, sending the encryption and the authentication information is a more energy-saving method (i.e. generating and sending a data packet)).
CHEN teaches a iBeacon broadcast message encryption and authentication method. However, CHEN differs from the claimed invention in not specifically and clearly describing wherein
sending, by the third device, the first data packet.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor, LiHe teaches wherein
sending, by the third device, the first data packet [0060], e.g. the receiving, by a first AMF, a second request message sent by an N3IWF specifically includes: [0061] receiving a second request message sent by a second AMF, where the second request message is sent by the second AMF based on a received third request message sent by the N3IWF; and [0062] the sending a second response message to the N3IWF specifically includes: [0063] sending a third response message to the second AMF, so that the second AMF sends a second response message to the N3IWF, where the second response message and the third response message each carry the first security key (i.e. sending, by the third N3IWF device, the first data packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the method of LiHe within the method of CHEN. The motivation to combine references is that the combined system provides a method and a system for performing network access authentication based on a non-3GPP network and the UE can quickly access the network (See LiHe [0002]).
Regarding claim 16, CHEN in view of LiHe teaches all the limitations of claim 15. CHEN further teaches wherein the method further comprises: sending second information or fourth information, wherein the second information or the fourth information includes receiving time information ([invention contents], e.g. in the broadcast packet other than the iBeacon original broadcast packet sending dynamic change with time of message authentication code (Message Authentication Code) or digital signature, solves the problem of iBeacon base station to be forged. … In one implementation, from a real UUID, Major Minor information generate a hash of the hash of part or all as the input of the pseudo-random number generator at a fixed time node generates a pseudo random number, the whole or part of the random number as the dynamic identifier. short digital signature taking all or part of the hash and timestamp information as message (i.e. information includes receiving time information)).
Regarding claim 17, CHEN in view of LiHe teaches all the limitations of claim 16. CHEN further teaches wherein the receiving time information indicates is useable to indicate a corresponding time at which the third device receives the first data packet in the at least one second data packet ([invention contents], e.g. in the broadcast packet other than the iBeacon original broadcast packet sending dynamic change with time of message authentication code (Message Authentication Code) or digital signature, solves the problem of iBeacon base station to be forged. … In one implementation, from a real UUID, Major Minor information generate a hash of the hash of part or all as the input of the pseudo-random number generator at a fixed time node generates a pseudo random number, the whole or part of the random number as the dynamic identifier. short digital signature taking all or part of the hash and timestamp information as message, use the BLS algorithm combining with the private key to generate 20 bytes of the dynamic identification of the finally generated with a digital signature are sent to the Scan Response iBeacon base station of the broadcast packet. dynamic identifying server after receiving the dynamic identification and digital signature submitted by the handheld device (i.e. broadcast message includes timestamp of when the authentication message is generated)).
Regarding claim 20, CHEN teaches a communication apparatus ([invention contents], e.g. Therefore, it is an object of the present invention is to provide a iBeacon broadcast message encryption and authentication method, which effectively prevents iBeacon in the existing technology base station (i.e. first device) broadcast message can be used by any person (i.e. a terminal device, a second device, a receiving device), and the iBeacon base station can be easily forged), comprising
one or more processors coupled with one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories are configured to store non- transitory instructions, the one or more processors are configured to execute the non-transitory instructions ([invention contents], e.g. the invention provides method for iBeacon broadcast message from the iBeacon base station sends a Bluetooth broadcast packet to the receiving end (i.e. a receiving device with a processor and a non-transitory memory executing instructions to perform data communication)), thereby causing the communication apparatus to perform operations comprising:
.receiving at least one second data packet ([invention contents], e.g. the invention adds additional Bluetooth broadcast packets it sends a dynamic identifier in the Bluetooth broadcast packet other than the iBeacon original broadcast packet (ID), effectively solves the iBeacon base station by the third party (i.e. receiving by a third party a second data packet). in the broadcast packet other than the iBeacon original broadcast packet sending dynamic change with time of message authentication code (Message Authentication Code) or digital signature),
generating a first data packet based on the at least one second data packet ([invention contents], e.g. 6) of the iBeacon base station an additional Bluetooth broadcast packet (i.e. establishing a communication connection for a broadcast message to scan devices), can be a BLE (Bluetooth (LowEnergy)) scanning device Passive Scanning obtained, also may be a scanning device (i.e. a second scan device) when Active Scanning Scan Response sent by the broadcast device broadcast packet. Scan Response broadcast packet only when the central device sending Scan Request (scan request) when using the ScanResponse broadcast packet sent, therefore, sending the encryption and the authentication information is a more energy-saving method (i.e. generating and sending a data packet)).
CHEN teaches a iBeacon broadcast message encryption and authentication method. However, CHEN differs from the claimed invention in not specifically and clearly describing wherein
sending the first data packet.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor, LiHe teaches wherein
sending the first data packet [0060], e.g. the receiving, by a first AMF, a second request message sent by an N3IWF specifically includes: [0061] receiving a second request message sent by a second AMF, where the second request message is sent by the second AMF based on a received third request message sent by the N3IWF; and [0062] the sending a second response message to the N3IWF specifically includes: [0063] sending a third response message to the second AMF, so that the second AMF sends a second response message to the N3IWF, where the second response message and the third response message each carry the first security key (i.e. sending, by the third N3IWF device, the first data packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the method of LiHe within the method of CHEN. The motivation to combine references is that the combined system provides a method and a system for performing network access authentication based on a non-3GPP network and the UE can quickly access the network (See LiHe [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 18-19 are allowable over prior arts.
Reasons for allowance
Claims 1-14 and 18-19 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The reason for allowance is that the prior arts of record fail to teach the limitations along with preamble as a whole claim. The limitations recited in the independent claims comprise a particular combination of elements, functions and preamble, which are neither taught nor suggested by the prior arts as a whole claim.
Applicant's independent claim 1 comprises a particular combination of underlined features in combination with other recited limitations, which are neither taught nor-suggested by the prior art as a whole claim. Therefore, the independent claim is allowable.
Similarly, other independent claims 9, 18 and 19 comprise a particular combination of underlined features in combination with other recited limitations with analogous wording, which are neither taught nor-suggested by the prior art(s) as a whole claim. Therefore, the independent claim(s) is/are allowable.
Dependent claims are deemed allowable for the same reasons as corresponding independent claim(s).
Prior Art References
The Applicants' replies make evident the reasons for allowance, satisfying the "record as a whole" proviso of the rule 37 CFR 1.104(e), as applicant arguments filed on 09/08/2026 are persuasive, as such the reasons for allowance are in all probability evident from the record and no statement is deemed necessary (see MPEP 1302. 14).
Specifically, the substance of applicants' remarks, pages 8-10, are persuasive. For example: applicant arguments that combination of references does not teach or suggest, claim 1, namely,
(a) generating, by a first device, a first authentication code based on first information, a first key, and first data.
(b) a three-input authentication code generation where "first information" is structurally separate from the "first data.
Chen's (CN Pub. No. 106304046) message may embed a timestamp, that timestamp is part of the data, not an independent input category alongside the key and data. Chen does not disclose a three-input authentication code generation where "first information" is structurally separate from the "first data."
Chen also does not disclose "first context information" as an input to first authentication code generation.
LiHe (U.S. Pub. No. 20200015079) describes generating an authentication code from a security key LiHe does not disclose generating an authentication code from three independent inputs including time/context information and data as separate categories. LiHe's "security context information" is used for key derivation, and not as a direct, and independent input to the authentication code generation itself.
LiHe does not disclose "sending time information" at all. LiHe's time parameters are protocol timestamps for authentication handshake procedures, and not data- packet temporal metadata indicating when a data packet is sent.
AS such, Applicant's independent claims are not rendered Obviousness by the teachings of above prior arts.
Therefore, arguments are persuasive, and hence independent and corresponding dependent claims are allowable over the prior arts.
The present invention provides an improved method for satellite communication, a satellite communication service may be used for positioning and communication in areas where mobile communication is unavailable or cannot be implemented, or where a communication system is damaged, such as oceans, deserts, grasslands, or uninhabited areas. At present, a satellite communication system does not provide civil terminals with a secure transmission mechanism for use. To securely transmit data between a terminal and a satellite, a communication protocol needs to be designed specific for civil service and device features and features of the satellite communication system. These and other shortcomings are identified and addressed in the disclosure by providing a three-input authentication code generation method.
Therefore, when taken as a whole application, and incorporating all the respective limitations, none of the prior art discloses the features as claimed.
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 extension fee 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 Mahendra Patel whose telephone number is (571)270-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 AM to 5:30 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, Anthony Addy can be reached on (571) 272-7795(571) 272-7795. 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.
/MAHENDRA R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights