DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
On response filed on 12/26/2025, claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 were/was amended; new claims 21-33 claims were added; claim(s) 6, 9-20 was/were cancelled. As a result, claims 1-5, 7-8, 21-33 are pending, of which claims 1, 21 and 29 are in independent form.
Response to Arguments
Remarks filed on 12/26/2025 have been considered carefully and respectfully but they are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 29 is directed to a communication system comprising a processor configured to implement a network element,… The examiner interprets the process as including a software per se and thus the processor could be interpreted as a non-patent eligible software per se. The examiner suggests the system comprising a network element, network element including a processor and a memory such that the processor executing instructions stored in the memory performing the steps listed in the body of the claim.
Dependent claims 30-33 dos not add any additional hardware elements to the system and thus claims 30-33 are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 29.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 21-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (US 2009/0144544 A1) hereinafter Koo, in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0163600 A1) hereinafter Kim.
As to claim 1, Koo teaches a key update method, comprising:
when an authorization of a user that joins a multicast service corresponding to a multicast group identifier change (see para. [0041] “TS may receive a LeaveMulticastSession message from the second CM that desires to leave the multicast group”; The examiner considers second CM leaving the multicast group with an assigned first DSID and a first SAID as an all or none type of membership authorization where second CM joining the multicast group obtains full authorization for user associated with the second CM; in contrast, second CM leaving the multicast group removes the authorization for the user associated with the second CM leaving the multicast group. Thus, loss of authorization for the user associated with the second CM leaving the multicast group is observed as change of authorization.; see also para. [0052] for updating CM2 entitlement information upon CM2 leaving the multicast group),
sending a third message, wherein the third message comprises the multicast group identifier (e.g. DSID) (see para. [0043] “the CMTS may update a first TEK corresponding to the first DSID with a second TEK.”; see para. [0044] “the CMTS may exchange a DBC message corresponding to the updated second TEK for changing the multicast parameter with the first CM. In this case, the first CM may set a first TEK refresh timer corresponding to the first SAID to zero and thereby expire the first TEK refresh timer.”; see Fig. 4, it seems that for example DBC message being exchanged between the CTMS and the first CM is indicative of the multicast group and the first CM correctly updates the first TEK to a second TEK upon receiving the DBC message.),
receiving, a second multicast transmission key corresponding to the multicast group identifier, wherein the second multicast transmission key is an updated key of a first multicast transmission key corresponding to the multicast group identifier (see Fig. 5, step S511 Key Reply(TEK1, TEK2); see para. [0053] “The CMTS 310 and the first CM (CM1) 321 may exchange a key message corresponding to the second TEK. Specifically, in operation S510, the first CM 321 may send a key request message to the CMTS 310. In operation S511, the CMTS 310 may send a key reply message to the first CM 321.”; see also para. [0042] ; see Fig. 4. E.g., upon receiving LeaveMulticastSession message from second CM, first TEK is updated with second TEK and DBC message corresponding to second TEK is exchanged with first CM.; see para. [0043] “the CMTS may update a first TEK corresponding to the first DSID with a second TEK.”).
Koo does not explicitly teach but Kim teaches “or when use time of a multicast transmission key corresponding to the multicast group identifier reaches a preset time” (see para. [0069] “…the mobile station and the base station can update the multicast security key when a lifetime of the multicast security key, for example the MTEK lifetime expires.”; see Fig. 10 and para. [0070] “[0070] Referring to FIG. 10, before a lifetime of a multicast security key, for example an MTEK lifetime expires, a base station 101 transmits a PKM-RSP message including update information of an MTEK to a mobile station 102 to request an update of the MTEK (S1010). The MTEK update information may include an MEKS, a COUNTER_MTEK, and an MTEK lifetime. The PKM-RSP message may have a type indicating the MTEK update. The MTEK update information may further include an FID and multicast group ID where the MTEK is updated, or a multicast group CID where the MTEK is updated.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Koo an Kim before him or her, to modify the scheme of Koo by including Kim The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to support security for multicast communication group by exchanging multicast security key update message when the lifetime of the multicast security key expires.
As to claims 21, 25, 29, claims 21, 25 and 29 include similar limitations as claim 1, and thus claims 21 and 25 is/are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 1.
As to claim 2, in view of claim 1, Kim teaches wherein receiving, the second multicast transmission key corresponding to the multicast group identifier comprises: receiving the second multicast transmission key and a second key identifier corresponding to the second multicast transmission key (see para. [0070], e.g. a COUNTER_MTEK as a second key identifier).
As to claims 22, 26, and 30, claims 22 and 26 and 30 include similar limitations as claim 2, and thus claims 22 and 26 an 30 is/are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 2.
As to claim 3, in view of claim 2, Kim teaches wherein the receiving the second multicast transmission key and the second key identifier corresponding to the second multicast transmission key comprises: receiving a first message, wherein the first message comprises the second multicast transmission key, the second key identifier, and the multicast group identifier (see para. [0070]).
As to claims 23, 27, and 31, claims 22, 27 and 31 include similar limitations as claim 3, and thus claims 23, 27 and 31 is/are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 3.
As to claim 4, in view claim 1, Koo teaches wherein the method further comprises: subscribing to a notification service that notifies a change of an authorization of a user that joins a multicast service corresponding to the multicast group identifier (see Fig. 7, S708 SDBC-REQ (SA encoding ‘change’).
As to claim 5, in view of claim 1, Koo teaches wherein the third message is sent when the authorization of the user that joins the multicast service corresponding to the multicast group identifier changes, wherein the third message further comprises at least one of the following: the multicast group identifier, authorized user change information, or indication information for updating the first multicast transmission key (see para. [0044], e.g., setting a first TEK refresh timer corresponding to the first SAID to zero and thereby expire the first TEK refresh timer.).
As to claim 7, in view of claim 1, Koo teaches wherein the third message indicates g to generate the second multicast transmission key; and generating the second multicast transmission key based on the third message (see Fig. 7, S705 and S712 (Key Request)).
As to claims 24, 28 and 32, claims 24, 28 and 32 include similar limitations as claim 7, and thus claims 24, 28 and 32 is/are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 7.
As to claim 8, in view of claim 1, Koo and Kim teaches wherein the method is performed by a multicast service function-user plane network element, and the sending a first message comprises: sending, by the multicast service function-control plane network element (Koo, e.g., Fig. 7, CMTS 310; Kim, base station).
As to claim 33, claim 33 include similar limitations as claim 8 and thus claim 33 is rejected under the same rationale as in claim 33.
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 HEE SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3260. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon – Fri, 7:30 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7291.
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.
/HEE K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
