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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 5/10/2024 and 11/11/2024 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 2/7/2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being Manolakos et al. (US-2024/0236653 hereinafter, Manolakos).
Regarding claim 1, Manolakos teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 3 [304]), comprising:
a processor; (Fig. 3B [384]) and
a memory coupled with the processor (Fig. 3B [Memory 386 coupled via Bus 382 to processor 384]), the processor configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a first device (Fig. 3A [302]), a first signaling indicating a request message; (Page 27 [0220] “a peer UE may send an authorization request to a network entity (e.g., base station) of a serving cell. The authorization request may request the network entity to authorize the peer UE to participate in a positioning session in at least one role”)
transmit, to the first device, a second signaling indicating a response message (Page 27 [0220] “the peer UE may receive an authorization message from the network entity of the serving cell.”) that includes an identifier (Page 21 [0177] i.e. authorize the roles) and a validity time; (note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an identifier and a validity time” is that it is just “data” because the active step is “transmit”, no other step/action occurs because of the specific “identifier and a validity time” and no other step refers back to the “identifier and a validity time”1)
receive, from a second device, a third signaling indicating a sidelink broadcast key request; (Page 21 [0177] “each peer UE 104 may send an authorization request 1308 to a network entity 1350.” Note: there are additional peer UE(s), see Fig. 13 [104(N)]) and
transmit, to the second device, a fourth signaling indicating a sidelink broadcast key response message that includes a broadcast key. (Page 21 [0177] “Based on the data 1309, the network entity 1350 may determine which roles 1306 the peer UE 104 is capable of performing and send an authorization response 1310 (e.g., to the peer UE 104 that sent the authorization request 1308) authorizing the peer UE 1304 to perform zero or more of the roles 1306 during a peer positioning session” and Page 10 [0082] “The AMF 264 also interacts with an authentication server function (AUSF) (not shown) and the UE 204, and receives the intermediate key that was established as a result of the UE 204 authentication process”)
Regarding claim 2, Manolakos teaches transmit, to a third device, a fifth signaling indicating an authorization request message that includes an identity of the first device; (Page 21 [0177] “each peer UE 104 may send an authorization request 1308 to a network entity 1350”) note: identity not referred to again in claim, see footnote 1 above and
receive, from the third device, a sixth signaling indicating a successful authorization result of the first device. (Page 21 [0177] “Based on the data 1309, the network entity 1350 may determine which roles 1306 the peer UE 104 is capable of performing and send an authorization response 1310 (e.g., to the peer UE 104 that sent the authorization request 1308) authorizing the peer UE 1304 to perform zero or more of the roles 1306 during a peer positioning session”)
Regarding claim 3, Manolakos teaches assign the identifier to the first device. (Page 27 [0220] “The authorization message may authorize the peer UE to participate in a positioning session in at least one role”)
Regarding claim 6, Manolakos teaches wherein the apparatus implements a sidelink positioning key management function (Fig. 13 [1350] handles [1308 & 1310]), the first device comprises a first user equipment (Fig. 13 [104(T)]) and the second device comprises a second user equipment. (Fig. 13 [104(N)])
Regarding claims 11-13 and 16, the limitations of claims 11-13 and 16 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 1-3 and 6.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US-2024/0235823 hereinafter, Kim).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches a user equipment (Fig. 5 [507] and Fig. 8 [802]) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory; (Fig. 5 [586])
at least one processor (Fig. 5 [584]) coupled (Fig. 5 [589]) with the at least one memory (Fig. 5 [586]) and configured to cause the UE to:
transmit, to a first device (Fig. 8 [806]), a first signaling indicating a request message; (Fig. 8 [810] and Page 16 [0119] “first UE 802 may send a key request 810 to group manager 806”)
receive, from the first device, a second signaling (Fig. 8 [814]) indicating a response message that includes an identifier (Page 16 [0121] “The security materials may include: a sidelink-positioning group key (which may be referred to herein as a “group key”), a sidelink-positioning group-key identifier (which may be referred to herein as “group-key identifier” or “group-key ID”), and one or more algorithm identifiers (which may be referred to herein as “algorithm IDs”).”) and a validity time; (Page 16 [0122] “group manager 806 may provide first UE 802 with multiple sets of security materials (including multiple group keys and corresponding group-key identifiers) and corresponding validity times. Each of the sets of security materials may be valid during a specific time window as indicated by the validity times”)
transmit, to a second device (Fig. 8 [804]), a third signaling (Fig. 8 [822]) indicating a sidelink broadcast message with a requested positioning or ranging action that includes an identity of the UE and the identifier; (Page 17 [0128] “First UE 802 may generate a message including information associated with positioning-reference signaling (e.g., a positioning-assistance message). Further, first UE 802 may generate a message header for the message. In one illustrative example, the message header may include the group identifier of first UE 802, the UE identifier of first UE 802, the group-key identifier (associated with a group key used by first UE 802 in generating the traffic key), the traffic-key identifier, and the algorithm identifier indicative of the algorithm used to generate the encryption key and the integrity key” and Page 17 [0132] “first UE 802 may provide broadcast and/or groupcast security for sidelink positioning”)
receive, from the first device, a fourth signaling indicating a broadcast key; (Fig. 8 [814], Page 16 [0121], Fig. 9 [906] and Page 18 [0143] “obtaining a group key and a group-key identifier associated with the group key. In some cases, obtaining the group key and the group-key identifier at block 906 may include receiving the group key and the group-key identifier from a group management network entity, e.g., group manager 806 of FIG. 8”) and
establish, with the second device (Fig. 8 [804]) and using the broadcast key, a protocol for sidelink positioning procedures (SLPP) session. (Fig. 8 [822] and Page 17 [0130 & 0133] “UEs 804, which may be intended recipients of the encrypted message, may receive keys to enable UEs 804 to decrypt the encrypted message such that UEs 804 may participate in sidelink positioning with first UE 802”)
receive, from the second device, a fifth signaling indicating a result of the requested positioning or ranging action that is protected with the broadcast key. (Pages 15-16 [0114] “For SL positioning (e.g., positioning based on sidelink communications), participating UEs (e.g., including first UE 702 and second UE 704) can exchange messages including positioning capability of the participating UEs, assistant data of the participating UEs, and measurement results of the participating UEs in the SLPP layer 71” & “systems and techniques, may include encryption and authentication at the SLPP layer 716”)
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches wherein the second signaling and the fourth signaling are a same signaling (Kim Fig. 8 [814] and Page 16 [0121]), and the broadcast key comprises a group broadcast key that is also received by one or more additional devices. (Kim Page 17 [0133-0134] “UEs 804 may receive the same group identifier, the same group keys, the same group-key identifiers, and/or the same algorithm identifiers that first UE 802 received at key response 814”)
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches wherein the broadcast key comprises an individual broadcast key for the UE. (Pages 4-5 [0041] “a first UE may obtain a group key (associated with a group of UEs that includes the first UE) and an algorithm identifier indicative of an algorithm. In the present disclosure, the term “group key” may refer to a cryptographic key shared by and/or associated with a group of UEs. The first UE may derive an encryption key and an integrity key based on the group key using the algorithm”)
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches wherein the UE comprises a first user equipment (Kim Fig. 8 [802]), the first device comprises a device that implements a sidelink positioning key management function (Kim Fig. 8 [806]), and the second device comprises a second UE. (Kim Fig. 8 [804] and Page 16 [0121-0122])
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a processor for wireless communication (Fig. 5 and Fig. 8 [804]), comprising:
at least one controller (Fig. 5 [584]) coupled (Fig. 5 [589]) with at least one memory (Fig. 5 [586]) and configured to cause the processor to:
receive, from a first device (Fig. 8 [802]), a first signaling (Fig. 8 [822]) indicating a sidelink broadcast message with a requested positioning or ranging action (Page 117 [0132] “first UE 802 may provide security to the message, which message may be a positioning-assistance message”) that includes an identity of the first device (Page 17 [0130] “the UE identifier of first UE 802”) and an identifier; (Page 17 [0130] “the group-key identifier”)
transmit, to a second device (Fig. 8 [806]), a second signaling indicating a sidelink broadcast key request; (Page 17 [0133] “at service 830, UEs 804 may obtain authorization to participate in sidelink positioning. Further, UEs 804 may send a key request similar to key request 810 (including respective group identifiers of UEs 804) and may receive a response similar to key response 814 (including respective security materials (including respective group keys, group-key identifiers, and one or more algorithm identifiers))”)
receive, from the second device (Fig. 8 [806]), a third signaling indicating a sidelink broadcast key response message. (Page 17 [0133] “at service 830, UEs 804 may obtain authorization to participate in sidelink positioning. Further, UEs 804 may send a key request similar to key request 810 (including respective group identifiers of UEs 804) and may receive a response similar to key response 814 (including respective security materials (including respective group keys, group-key identifiers, and one or more algorithm identifiers))”)
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches wherein the sidelink broadcast key response message includes a broadcast key in response to the sidelink broadcast key request message being transmitted to the second device within a validity time (Page 16 [0122] and Pages 18-19 [0144] “Each of the number of key-validity times may be indicative of a time during which a respective one of the number of group keys is valid”) as well as an apparatus that includes the processor and the first device having a same location identity. (Page 16-17 [0124] “The usage configurations may include a validity time of a respective UE identifier, a number of broadcast messages including the respective UE identifier, location information associated with the respective UE identifier, any combination thereof, and/or other information. For example, group manager 806 may provide a number of UE identifiers, each UE identifier to be used during a different validity time, or each to be used based on different location conditions”)
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches wherein the sidelink broadcast key response message includes a group broadcast key that is also received by one or more additional apparatuses. (Fig. 8 [830] and Page 17 [0133-0134] “For example, at service 830, UEs 804 may obtain authorization to participate in sidelink positioning. Further, UEs 804 may send a key request similar to key request 810 (including respective group identifiers of UEs 804) and may receive a response similar to key response 814 (including respective security materials (including respective group keys, group-key identifiers, and one or more algorithm identifiers)).”)
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches wherein the processor is included in a first user equipment (Fig. 8 [804], the first device comprises a second user equipment (Fig. 8 [802]) and the second device comprises a device that implements sidelink positioning key management function. (Fig. 8 [806])
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.
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Manolakos teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the response message further includes a group broadcast key associated with the request message.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches a method for broadcast/groupcast security in sidelink positioning (Abstract) that includes an apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 8 [806]) that receives, from a first device (Fig. 8 [810]) a first signaling indicating a request message; (Page 16 [0119])
transmit, to the first device, a second signaling indicating a response message that includes an identifier and a validity time; (Fig. 8 [814], Page 16 [0121] “The security materials may include: a sidelink-positioning group key (which may be referred to herein as a “group key”), a sidelink-positioning group-key identifier (which may be referred to herein as “group-key identifier” or “group-key ID”), and one or more algorithm identifiers (which may be referred to herein as “algorithm IDs”).” and Page 16 [0122] “group manager 806 may provide first UE 802 with multiple sets of security materials (including multiple group keys and corresponding group-key identifiers) and corresponding validity times. Each of the sets of security materials may be valid during a specific time window as indicated by the validity times”)
wherein the response message (note: it is not necessarily clear whether this is to the first device or the second device, however Kim discloses both devices will receive the response message and group broadcast key) further includes a group broadcast key associated with the request message. (For Fig. 8 [814] see Page 16 [0121] “group manager 806 may provide first UE 802 with security materials in a key response 814. The security materials may include: a sidelink-positioning group key (which may be referred to herein as a “group key”), a sidelink-positioning group-key identifier (which may be referred to herein as “group-key identifier” or “group-key ID”), and one or more algorithm identifiers (which may be referred to herein as “algorithm IDs”)” and for Fig. 8 [830] see Page 17 [0133-0134] “For example, at service 830, UEs 804 may obtain authorization to participate in sidelink positioning. Further, UEs 804 may send a key request similar to key request 810 (including respective group identifiers of UEs 804) and may receive a response similar to key response 814 (including respective security materials (including respective group keys, group-key identifiers, and one or more algorithm identifiers)).”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Manolakos after modifying it to incorporate the ability to provide a group broadcast key of Kim since it enables the UEs to utilize the same security key for encrypting/decrypting messages to verify the integrity of the message/sender. (Kim Page 18 [0137-0140] “By verifying the MAC, UEs 804 may verify the integrity of the decrypted message before trusting the message. In some cases, the message may be a positioning-assistance message or other type of message”)
Regarding claim 5, Manolakos in view of Kim teaches wherein the broadcast key comprises a group broadcast key (Kim Fig. 8 [814] see Page 16 [0121] “group manager 806 may provide first UE 802 with security materials in a key response 814. The security materials may include: a sidelink-positioning group key (which may be referred to herein as a “group key”), a sidelink-positioning group-key identifier (which may be referred to herein as “group-key identifier” or “group-key ID”), and one or more algorithm identifiers (which may be referred to herein as “algorithm IDs”)”), the second signaling includes the group broadcast key (Kim Fig. 8 [814]), and the processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to:
transmit, to one or more additional UEs (Kim Fig. 8 [804]), one or more additional signalings indicating the group broadcast key. (Kim Fig. 8 [830] and Page 17 [0133-0134] “For example, at service 830, UEs 804 may obtain authorization to participate in sidelink positioning. Further, UEs 804 may send a key request similar to key request 810 (including respective group identifiers of UEs 804) and may receive a response similar to key response 814 (including respective security materials (including respective group keys, group-key identifiers, and one or more algorithm identifiers)).”)
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the limitations of claims 14 and 15 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 4 and 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US-2024/0015813) which discloses utilizing layer two identifiers during sidelink communications between UEs. (Abstract)
Manolakos et al. (WO2022/216345) is the WIPO publication corresponding to US-2024/0236653 utilized above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
1 The Applicant is reminded that structure defines how an apparatus differs from prior art apparatuses and when no difference in structure is defined, the assumption is made that the prior art structure meets the limitations.
The Examiner will not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious). See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff' d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). This printed matter doctrine is not strictly limited to “printed” materials. Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032. More specifically, “a claim limitation is directed to printed matter ‘if it claims the content of information.' ” Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032 (quoting In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In method cases, the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).