DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 1-20 are canceled. Claims 21, 22, 25-28, 33, 37, and 40 have been amended. This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on October 10, 2025.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21, 28 , 33 and 37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-31 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub 20180007499 (hereinafter Lee)
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first terminal device, a first identifier from a core network element, wherein the first identifier modifies a security protection policy of a terminal device (Figs. 11-13 and par. [0319]-[0339] discloses a control device can force security mode on a device via a control message);
in a process in which the first terminal device establishes a connection to a second terminal device for a service, determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, whether to enable, by the first terminal device, security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Figs. 11-3 and 16 and par. [0319]-[0339] and [0373]-[0395] disclose a connection between a first device and a second device where the security mode is enforced by the control device); and
sending, by the first terminal device, first information to the second terminal device, wherein the first information indicates by the second terminal device whether to enable, by the second terminal device, security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Fig. 6 and par. [0373]-[0395] discloses the entire connection procedure in discovery mode with the security mode on or off depending the information p[provided by the control device).
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses wherein the first identifier a new security protection policy, a new security protection enabling manner, or first indication information, wherein the first indication information indicates that the security protection policy of a terminal device is allowed to be forcibly modified (see claim 21 rejection, Lee discloses the security mode is set by the control device).
Regarding claim 23, Lee discloses wherein the first identifier is the first indication information, and determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, whether to enable security protection for the connection comprises:
determining, by the first terminal device based on the first indication information and according to a first security protection policy, whether to enable security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device, wherein the first security protection policy is a security protection policy applied by the first terminal device in the service (as presented above, a policy is enforced for a service. Hence, the security mode is enforced between two devices).
Regarding claim 24, Lee discloses wherein the first identifier is the new security protection enabling manner, and determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, whether to enable security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device comprises:
determining, by the first terminal device based on the new security protection enabling manner, whether to enable security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Table 3-4 discloses security information comprises Security Mode and Security Level which implies the control device can change to a new Security Mode and Security Level. Par. [0592] discloses the control device can identify whether neighboring devices support the function of changing a mode. Hence, the first device would enable security protection based on the information provided by the control device).
Regarding claim 25, Lee discloses wherein determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, whether to enable security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device comprises:
when it is determined that the second terminal device supports forcible modification of a security protection policy of the second terminal device, determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, whether to enable security protection for the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (see claim 24 rejection and also Fig.12 for data in the control message which comprises the enforced policy but corresponding the capability of a device ( e.g. first or second device. Each device provides the advertising message comprising parameters recited in the claim).
Regarding claim 26, Lee discloses wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first terminal device, a service discovery code from the second terminal device in a discovery procedure of the service, wherein the service discovery code corresponds to the first identifier; and determining, by the first terminal device based on the service discovery code, that the second terminal device supports forcible modification of the security protection policy of the second terminal device (Fig. 12 discloses the control message comprises various information including discovery mode information).
Regarding claim 27, Lee discloses wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the first terminal device, a first message from the second terminal device in a process of establishing the connection between the first terminal device and the second terminal device, wherein the first message comprises the first identifier; and determining, by the first terminal device based on the first identifier, that the second terminal device supports forcible modification of the security protection policy of the second terminal device (par. [0361] The first device 300 and the second device 400 that enter the advertising mode or the discoverable mode transmit advertising message for informing themselves to neighboring devices in the advertising channel. This teaches if a control message is sent between devices, it will comprise identifiers, as illustrated in Fig. 12, for connection type, security mode, etc. See also par. [0016] for the advertising message including at least one of an address, information or a function of another control device).
Regarding claims 28-29, the claim is rejected in view of claims 21 and 26-27 rejections for interaction between the first device and second device using discovery mode for communication.
Regarding claim 30, Lee discloses receiving a request message from a second network element serving the second terminal, wherein the request message requests the service discovery parameter of the first service; and returning a response message to the second network element, wherein the response message comprises the service discovery parameter and the security protection policy (Fig. 12 discloses all parameters in the control message comprises all recited features).
Regarding claims 31-32, Lee discloses wherein the first service is a neighborhood service Prose service, and the service discovery parameter of the first service is a neighborhood service code Prose code, wherein the Prose code comprises: a ProSe application code, a ProSe discovery code, a ProSe query code, or a ProSe response code (Figs. 12-13 and related text).
Regarding claim 37, the claim is rejected in view of claim 21 rejection since it recites the function of a terminal device such as the first or second device presented in Lee.
Regarding claims 38-39, the claim is rejected in view of claims 34 and 36 rejections.
Regarding claim 40, the claim is rejected in view of claim 31 rejection.
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.
Claims 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pub 20170237747 (hereinafter Quinn)
Regarding claim 33, the claim is rejected in view of claims 21 and 26-27. Note that each service requires a different policy. Lee discloses the advertising message comprises an address value but not discuss whether wherein the plurality of security protection policies comprise different security protection policies of a first service at different geographical locations. Quin discloses accessing protected data asset based on user device’s specific location enforcing by a policy (par. [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee with Quinn to teach the aforementioned feature. One would have done so to for secure access based on policy for the improvement as discussed by Quinn.
Regarding claim 34, Lee discloses sending, by the first terminal, a second discovery request to the first network element, wherein the second discovery request requests to obtain the service discovery parameter; receiving, by the first terminal, a second discovery response from the first network element, wherein the second discovery response comprises the service discovery parameter; and establishing, by the first terminal, the security connection of the first service to the second terminal according to one of a plurality of security protection policies (as illustrated in Lee, both the first and second devices can discover each other but the request for communication for services still going via the control device for policy enforcement).
Regarding claim 35, Lee discloses wherein the service discovery parameter corresponds to the security protection policy corresponding to the first service in the first discovery response (Fig. 28 discloses the advertising message comprises all parameters for discovery and a capability corresponding a policy (e.g. read, write, etc.).
Regarding claim 36, the claim is rejected in view of claims 21 and 27 rejections.
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.
Inquiry communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1994. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
/TRI M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights