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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-30 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 27, line 2, “means for transmitting, by a spectrum access arbiter entity” and the corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the transmitting is one or more antennas (paragraph [0117], “As shown, the apparatus 1000 may communicate with another apparatus 1008, such as a UE or a network node (such as a CU, a DU, an RU, or a base station), using the reception component 1002 and the transmission component 1004.” and paragraph [120], Fig.10:1004, “In some aspects, the transmission component 1004 may include one or more antennas,” (i.e., paragraph 117 is to show the spectrum access arbiter maps to the apparatus in Fig.10, wherein the spectrum access arbiter entity has an antenna for transmitting.)).
Claim 27, line 7, “means for receiving, by an open radio access network radio unit (O-RU),” and the corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the transmitting is one or more antennas (paragraph [119], Fig.10:1002, “In some aspects, the transmission component 1004 may include one or more antennas,”).
Claim 27, line 10, “means for selectively transmitting, by the O-RU,” and the corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the transmitting is one or more antennas (paragraph [120], Fig.10:1004, “In some aspects, the transmission component 1004 may include one or more antennas,”).
Claim 27, line 15, “means for selectively transmitting” and the corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the transmitting is one or more antennas (paragraph [120], Fig.10:1004, “In some aspects, the transmission component 1004 may include one or more antennas,”).
Claim 27, line 17, “means for selectively transmitting” and the corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the transmitting is one or more antennas (paragraph [120], Fig.10:1004, “In some aspects, the transmission component 1004 may include one or more antennas,”).
Claim 27, line 19, “means for selectively transmitting” and the corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the transmitting is one or more antennas (paragraph [120], Fig.10:1004, “In some aspects, the transmission component 1004 may include one or more antennas,”).
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, 8-10, 12-16, 19-21, 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMPF (US-20210243612-A1) in view of Li (US-20170230824-A1) in view of RIVERA (US-20240235851-A1) in further view of Henry (US-20190028892-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, KEMPF discloses a network node (paragraph [0044], "a first spectrum renter 202A may own a spectrum renter system 206A, which includes a distributed ledger server 214B and one or more optional spectrum renter server(s) 213B. The servers 214B and 213B may be located in the same physical vicinity" and paragraph [0094], Fig.10, "FIG. 10 illustrates a block diagram for a network device that can be used for implementing one or more of the servers described herein,"), comprising:
one or more antennas (paragraph [0093], "…The radio signal may then be transmitted via antennas to the appropriate recipient(s)." and paragraph [0094], Fig.10, "and the network communication interfaces 1060."); and
a processing system that includes one or more processors (paragraph [0094], Fig.10, "one or more processor(s) 1014 coupled with the computer readable storage medium 1012 "), and one or more memories that store code for the one or more processors (paragraph [0094], Fig.10, "one or more processor(s) 1014 coupled with the computer readable storage medium 1012 "),
the processing system configured to cause the network node to configured to:
transmit, by a spectrum access arbiter entity (par.46, spectrum owner system 203A-N) associated with the network node and to an (paragraph [0046], "The systems 203A-N, 205, and 206A-M are operative to perform the operations described below in FIGS. 3-9 to negotiate the spectrum licenses." and paragraph [0059], Fig.3, "When the granted spectrum allocation right is recorded in the distributed ledger network 204, the spectrum renter system 206A receives, at operation 322, a notification that the recordation has been completed and may initiate the usage of the spectrum resources at the site 215A (operation 324)." (i.e., spectrum renter system 206A is reading on distributed unit who is requesting spectrum from a spectrum owner system 203A.)),
a grant that permits use of a shared spectrum resource (paragraph [0059], Fig.3, " Once the terms of the agreement are settled, the spectrum usage rights grant (spectrum allocation) that is signed by both the spectrum owner system 203A and the spectrum renter system 206A is recorded, at operation 320, on the distributed ledger network."),
the grant being associated with a reservation of the shared spectrum resource (paragraph [0057], Fig.3, "The spectrum owner is then operative to grant rights of usage of these spectrum resources to one or multiple renters for specific interval of times."),
and the grant indicating a first cryptographic checksum for a given timeslot (par.85, interval of time) in which the shared spectrum resource is granted (paragraph [0058], “The spectrum renter system 206A further accesses the distributed ledger to retrieve the hash of the list of network resources to determine the authenticity of the list of available resources.” and paragraph [0062], “The two parties then generate a shared key, at operation 408. In some embodiments, the shared key can be generated using, for example, the Diffie-Hellman key exchange protocol for a symmetric encryption algorithm, for example the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm… the shared key can be generated through other cryptographically secure algorithms.” and paragraph [0063], “The agreement terms are encrypted with the shared encryption key and stored either on the distributed ledger network,” and paragraph [0085], Fig.8:804, "At operation 804, the spectrum owner system receives, from a spectrum renter system (e.g., system 206A), an authorization request for a spectrum allocation of spectrum resources. The spectrum allocation includes at least a desired interval of time for usage of the spectrum resources by a radio access network of a spectrum renter," (i.e., grant indicated the desired interval of time for usage of the spectrum resources.));
receive, by an (paragraph [0072], Fig.6A, "When the rights grant delegation of the spectrum resources is finalized, the distributed ledger server (e.g., the transaction processor 224B (e.g., a blockchain processor) of the distributed ledger server 214B) communicates the details of the spectrum allocation to a grant compliance controller 235. The grant compliance controller 235 can be running on the site server…" and paragraph [0073], Fig.6A:614, "At operation 614, the grant compliance controller transmits the message including the configuration parameters to the base station." (i.e., Examiner notes the grant compliance controller 235 is part of distributed ledger server 214B and that is part of Spectrum Renter System 206A as shown in Fig.4, thus when the grant compliance controller is transmitting the message that is reading on the Spectrum Renter System is sending to the base station or "DU" sending to "RU".)),
the transmission being received based at least in part on the grant (paragraph [0072], Fig.6A, " the distributed ledger server 214B may receive a confirmation of successful spectrum allocation, at operation 602. The grant compliance controller 235 receives a request 604 from the distributed ledger server 214B. The request 604 is a request to translate spectrum allocation parameters of the spectrum usage right granted to the spectrum renter from the spectrum owner into the configuration parameters for the access points." and paragraph [0073], "At operation 614, the grant compliance controller transmits the message including the configuration parameters to the base station." (i.e., at step 602 the distributed ledger server 214B which is part of the Spectrum Renter System 206A (Fig.3) receives the grant and is now sending a transmission to adjust the access point configuration.)),
selectively transmit, by the O-RU, the transmission via the shared spectrum resource based at least in part on an authentication of whether the transmission is authenticated (paragraph [0072], "The one or more access points are access points managed by the spectrum renter and enables one or several wireless network devices to connect via the spectrum resources to the access points." and paragraph [0073], "Each message includes configuration parameters for configuring the respective access point receiving the configuration parameters and enables the access point to transmit/receive data from one or more wireless network devices according to the spectrum resources allocated to the spectrum renter." and paragraph [0074], Fig.6A:620, "At operation 618, each one of the access points 234A-F configures the radio according to the configuration parameters in the message. At operation 620, the access point (e.g., base station) informs the grant compliance controller 235 that the radio is programmed. For example, the access point 234A may transmit an acknowledgment of successful configuration to the grant compliance controller 235. When all access points have reported back, the grant compliance controller 235 transmits a report of successful configuration to the distributed ledger server, at operation 622…Upon receipt of the report, the distributed ledger 214B records, at operation 624, the start of the usage of the allocated spectrum resources into the distributed ledger 204." (i.e., base station transmitting informs the of “successful configuration” in Fig.6:620 which will be provided to distributed ledger. Examiner notes “whether the transmission is authenticated” will be clear with a different refence. “Selectively transmit” is shown in paragraph 74, Fig.6A:620, “access point 234A may transmit an acknowledgement”)).
However, KEMPF does not disclose an open radio access network distributed unit (O-DU), an open radio access network radio unit (O-RU), a first cryptographic checksum, a second cryptographic checksum, [[the ]]wherein authentication of the transmission involves the grant being accepted by the O-RU based at least in part on a verification that the second cryptographic checksum corresponds to the first cryptographic checksum, wherein the processing system, to selectively transmit the transmission based at least in part on whether the transmission is authenticated, are configured to cause the network node to: transmit the transmission when the first cryptographic checksum and the second cryptographic checksum match, and transmit an indication to the O-DU that the transmission is not allowed when the first cryptographic checksum and the second cryptographic checksum do not match.
Li discloses a first cryptographic checksum (paragraph [0021], “to exchange cryptographic keys…step 105 provides a client with a preshared key (PSK) or other shared secret prior to attempting to connect with the network. This preshared key is referred to as an exclusive preshared key, because it is assigned to a single user or group of users, rather than every user on a network.” and paragraph [0022], “in step 110 the wireless access point begins the 4-way handshake by sending a first message to the client. The first message includes a first cryptographic nonce, or number used once, to the client. This is referred to as the A-Nonce.” and paragraph [0023], “the client generates its own nonce, referred to as the S-Nonce. Using the S-Nonce and the A-Nonce, the client generates a copy of a pairwise transient key (PTK),” and paragraph [0024], “the PTK into four separate keys, each of which is used for different purposes: EAPOL-MIC key, EAPOL-Encr key, Data-MIC key and Data-Encr key (for AES, the Data-MIC key and the Data_Encr key are the same).” (i.e., client is reading as the spectrum renter of KEMPF. The client is receiving a first cryptographic checksum by receiving a preshared key and using that key to create a message integrity Code (MIC).)).
a second cryptographic checksum (paragraph [0025], Fig.1:115, "In an embodiment of step 115, the client then sends a second message to the wireless access point. The second message includes the client-generated S-Nonce and a MIC, which is a cryptographic checksum of the message." (i.e., client sending a transmission to an access point with cryptographic checksum.)),
[[the ]]wherein authentication of the transmission involves the grant being accepted by the O-RU based at least in part on a verification that the second cryptographic checksum corresponds to the first cryptographic checksum (paragraph [0029], Fig.1, “In decision block 130, the wireless access point or other network device compares the verification MIC with the MIC included in the second message by the client. If the verification MIC matches the MIC included by the client in the second message, then the wireless access point or other network device has successfully identified the preshared key and corresponding PMK and PTK used by the client. An embodiment of method 100 may then proceed to step 135 to complete the authentication process. The wireless access point or other network device can then communicate with the client using the PTK derived from the selected preshared key or PMK.” (i.e., the access point derives its own MIC called “verification MIC” that is received the same way as the client and the MIC matches then the process moves to the next step.)).
KEMPF and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Security arrangements; Authentication; Protecting privacy or anonymity key management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KEMPF to implement the method of Li preshared key (PSK) as it performs cryptographic checksum before allowing the user access for extra security and Li discloses having a 4-way handshake (Li, paragraph [0021], "An embodiment of the invention uses a 4-way handshake to authenticate users and devices, collectively referred to as clients, and to exchange cryptographic keys, allowing clients to communicate securely with a communications network." and paragraph [0031], "network devices such as wireless access points precalculate and store PMKs corresponding with PSKs, so as to reduce the time required to determine and compare a large number of verification MICs with the MIC of the received message from the client.").
However, KEMPF in view of Li do not disclose an open radio access network distributed unit (O-DU), an open radio access network radio unit (O-RU), wherein the processing system, to selectively transmit the transmission based at least in part on whether the transmission is authenticated, are configured to cause the network node to: transmit the transmission when the first cryptographic checksum and the second cryptographic checksum match, and transmit an indication to the O-DU that the transmission is not allowed when the first cryptographic checksum and the second cryptographic checksum do not match.
RIVERA discloses an open radio access network distributed unit (O-DU) (paragraph [0076], Fig.7, "intermediate CA via Operator 1's O-DU, which is a trust anchor. The O-RAN PKI service provider is the root CA for the shared O-RU, and the O-DU enrolls with the external O-RAN PKI service provider."),
an open radio access network radio unit (O-RU) (paragraph [0076], Fig.7, "The multiple operators (Operator 1 and Operator 2) sharing the O-RU trust the certificate issued by the intermediate CA as the multiple operators have already established a trust relationship with the root CA, i.e., the O-RAN PKI service provider, and therefore trust the root certificate.").
KEMPF in view of Li and RIVERA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Security arrangements; Authentication; Protecting privacy or anonymity key management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KEMPF to implement the system of RIVERA such as the Open RAN as it is an emerging technology that enables multiple vendors hardware and software to telecommunication system and these entities have open protocols and interface between them (RIVERA, paragraph [0004], "Open RAN (O-RAN) technology has emerged to enable multiple vendors to provide hardware and/or software to a telecommunications system. To this end, O-RAN disaggregates the RAN functions into a centralized unit (CU), a distributed unit (DU), and a radio unit (RU).").
However, KEMPF in view of Li in further view of RIVERA do not disclose wherein the processing system, to selectively transmit the transmission based at least in part on whether the transmission is authenticated, are configured to cause the network node to: transmit the transmission when the first cryptographic checksum and the second cryptographic checksum match, and transmit an indication to the O-DU that the transmission is not allowed when the first cryptographic checksum and the second cryptographic checksum do not match.
Henry discloses selectively transmit, by the O-RU, the transmission via the shared spectrum resource based at least in part on an authentication of whether the transmission is authenticated (paragraph [0071], “At 606, the network controller determines whether an authentication request associated with the authentication request is received within a predetermined period of time. If no authentication request is received within the predetermined period of time (No at 606), at 608 the network controller sends to the requesting client device an access decision that denies network access to the client device. If the authentication request is received within the predetermined period of time (Yes at 606), at 610 the network controller determines whether a second private key included in the authentication response matches the first private key received from the client device.” (i.e., by the O-RU is disclosed by RIVERA, transmit is disclosed by KEMPF in Fig.6:620 and it’s via the shared spectrum resources as disclosed in paragraph 72-73. Henry also discloses selectively transmit based on the authentication.)),
wherein the processing system, to selectively transmit the transmission based at least on whether the transmission is authenticated, are configured to cause the network node to (paragraph [0027], "The network controller 104 then determines whether to give access to the client device to network 110 based on the authentication response from the server 102." and paragraph [0071], Fig.6, "FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating a method 600 performed by a network controller (e.g., WLC 104 shown in FIG. 1) for controlling network access permissions for client devices, according to an example embodiment." (i.e., Fig.6 shows the network controller of selectively transmit whether to authenticate based the matching of keys.)):
transmit the transmission when the first cryptographic checksum and the second cryptographic checksum match (paragraph [0027], " If the authentication response includes a private key, the network controller 104 determines whether the private key in the authentication response is the same as the private key indicated the access request received from the client device. For example, the network controller 104 may use the private key in the authentication response to encrypt the random string generated by the AP 106 and compare this encrypted string with the string received from the client device. If these two encrypted strings are the same, it indicates that the private key in the authentication response is the same as the private key in the access request received from the client device." and paragraph [0071], Fig.6, "If the first private key matches the second private key (Yes at 610), at 612 the network controller sends to the requesting client device an access decision that grants network access to the client device." (i.e., As shown in Fig.6:620 in Kempf the base station sending the transmission because the keys match thus allowing the spectrum renter system to gain access of the spectrum owner system.)),
and transmit an indication to the O-DU that the transmission is not allowed when the first cryptographic checksum and the second cryptographic checksum do not match (paragraph [0028], "In response to determining that the private keys are different, the network controller 104 denies network access to the client device." and paragraph [0071], Fig.6, "If the first private key does not match the second private (No at 610), at 608 the network controller sends to the requesting client device an access decision that denies network access to the client device."(i.e., transmit a rejection because the private key do not match. The fig.6 and par.28, and par.71 are for rejecting a user device but in combination with Kempf teach an indication can be sent to either allow or not allow transmission by the requesting device.)).
KEMPF in view of Li in further view of RIVERA and Henry are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Security arrangements; Authentication; Protecting privacy or anonymity key management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KEMPF to implement the system of Henry as it would enable KEMPF spectrum owner system to restrict spectrum renters thus providing increased security when spectrum renters are allowed access to spectrum owners (Henry, paragraph [0016], “These techniques are easily scalable to different kinds of client devices including IoT devices and any electronic devices seeking network access. The solution presented herein is useful for per-user or per-device Pre-Shared Key (PSK) network access control, particularly configured for IoT use cases. However, this solution may be useful for any WLAN-based network access control, not just for IoT applications.” and paragraph [0068], "when the access decision is to allow the client device 508 to have access to the network, the client device 508 may be required to follow some constrains. For example, the authentication response generated by the server 504 may include, in addition to the private key, a CoA message that imposes access restrictions on the client device. ").
Regarding Claim 2, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
KEMPF further discloses wherein the spectrum access arbiter entity is co-located with the O-RU (paragraph [0044], "The spectrum renter 202A may also own an industrial site such as industrial customer site 215A. The industrial customer site 215A is located in a geographical location in which the spectrum resources provided by the spectrum owner 201A are to be used. In some embodiments, the site 215A may be located at a geographical location that is separate from the location of the spectrum renter system 206A. In other embodiments, the spectrum renter system 206A may be located in the vicinity of the site 215A." and paragraph [0050], "The exemplary industrial site 215A includes access points 234A-F and monitoring network devices 232A-F. The access points 234A-F can be base stations of a wireless network." (i.e., located in the same vicinity is reading on co-located.)).
Regarding Claim 3, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
KEMPF further discloses wherein the spectrum access arbiter entity is non-co-located with the O-RU (paragraph [0044], "The spectrum renter 202A may also own an industrial site such as industrial customer site 215A. The industrial customer site 215A is located in a geographical location in which the spectrum resources provided by the spectrum owner 201A are to be used. In some embodiments, the site 215A may be located at a geographical location that is separate from the location of the spectrum renter system 206A. In other embodiments, the spectrum renter system 206A may be located in the vicinity of the site 215A." and paragraph [0050], "The exemplary industrial site 215A includes access points 234A-F and monitoring network devices 232A-F. The access points 234A-F can be base stations of a wireless network." (i.e., the base station can be at a separate location of the spectrum renter system 206A.)).
Regarding Claim 4, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
KEMPF further discloses wherein the spectrum access arbiter entity is associated with O-RU spectrum sharing (paragraph [0072], Fig.6A, “FIG. 6A are performed to enable configuration of one or more access points (e.g., base stations) that are to be used by wireless network device (e.g., IoT devices) to connect via the spectrum resources as defined in the spectrum allocation recorded in the distributed ledger 204. When the rights grant delegation of the spectrum resources is finalized, the distributed ledger server (e.g., the transaction processor 224B (e.g., a blockchain processor) of the distributed ledger server 214B) communicates the details of the spectrum allocation to a grant compliance controller 235.” (i.e., the distributed ledger server 214B is associated with the radio unit by communicating using the grant controller the adjust the radio unit such as a base station to adjust the spectrum allocation.)).
Regarding Claim 5, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
Li further discloses wherein the first cryptographic checksum is based at least in part on a secret key exchange between the O-RU and the spectrum access arbiter entity (paragraph [0021], “step 105 also provides the preshared key to the network, including one or more wireless access points or other wireless network interface devices.” and paragraph [0027], Fig.1, "method 100 identifies the preshared key used by the client to send the second message. Step 120 begins this identification by selecting one of the keys from the set of valid keys. In an embodiment of step 120, a wireless access point or other network device stores a list of all of the preshared keys assigned to clients, or alternatively, a list of PMKs derived from all of the preshared keys assigned to clients." and paragraph [0028], “In step 125, the wireless access point or other network device derives a corresponding PTK using the same technique used by the client. The wireless access point or other network device then uses all or a portion of the derived PTK to calculate its own MIC, referred to herein as a verification MIC,” (i.e., similar to client deriving its own MIC, the access network also obtains pre-shared keys and derives “verification MIC” that would be used to match with the MIC included in the second message as disclosed in par.29.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
KEMPF further discloses wherein the grant that permits the use of the shared spectrum resource is indicated in a reservation response (paragraph [0059], Fig.3, "Once the terms of the agreement are settled, the spectrum usage rights grant (spectrum allocation) that is signed by both the spectrum owner system 203A and the spectrum renter system 206A is recorded, at operation 320, on the distributed ledger network. When the granted spectrum allocation right is recorded in the distributed ledger network 204, the spectrum renter system 206A receives, at operation 322, a notification that the recordation has been completed and may initiate the usage of the spectrum resources at the site 215A (operation 324)." (i.e., the spectrum allocation is due to the requesting of the use of the spectrum as disclosed in Fig.3.)),
and wherein the reservation response is based at least in part on a reservation request from the O-DU (paragraph [0058], Fig.3, For example, a spectrum renter system 206A may receive a request, operation 304, from an industrial customer site 215A for spectrum resources at the location of the site 215A." (i.e., operation 304 is the reservation request.)).
Regarding Claim 9, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
RIVERA further discloses wherein the O-RU is a shared O-RU among multiple mobile network operators (paragraph [0064], Fig.3, "the shared O-RU enrolls with Operator 1's intermediate CA, and the O-RAN PKI service provider is the root CA for the shared O-RU. The multiple operators (Operator 1 and Operator 2) sharing the O-RU trust the certificate issued by the intermediate CA as the multiple operators have already established a trust relationship with the root CA," (i.e., Fig.3 shows a shared O-RU being used by multiple operators.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 10, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
KEMPF further discloses wherein the spectrum access arbiter entity is one of a plurality of spectrum access arbiter entities associated with the O-RU (paragraph [0042], " Each one of the spectrum renter systems 206A-M is owned and/or operated by a respective spectrum renter 202A-M." and paragraph [0044], " a first spectrum renter 202A may own a spectrum renter system 206A, which includes a distributed ledger server 214B and one or more optional spectrum renter server(s) 213B…. The spectrum renter 202A may also own an industrial site such as industrial customer site 215A." and paragraph [0050], "For example, the site is the industrial customer site 215A. The exemplary industrial site 215A includes access points 234A-F and monitoring network devices 232A-F. The access points 234A-F can be base stations of a wireless network." (i.e., Each spectrum renter 202 includes a spectrum renter system 206 and which has a distributed ledger server 214B which is reading on "the spectrum access arbiter entity" and is associated with site 215A which has access points 234A-F and that is reading on O-RU, and examiner is reading as plurality because “202A-M” as in more than one. RIVERA discloses O-RU which is improved of base station.)),
and wherein each spectrum access arbiter entity is associated with a subset of resources of the O-RU (paragraph [0046], "The spectrum owner systems 203A-N, the spectrum renter systems 206A-M, the regulatory authority system 205, and the site 215A are coupled to one another through a wide area network (e.g., Internet) 210…The systems 203A-N, 205, and 206A-M are operative to perform the operations described below in FIGS. 3-9 to negotiate the spectrum licenses." and paragraph [0057], "The spectrum owner is then operative to grant rights of usage of these spectrum resources to one or multiple renters for specific interval of times." (i.e., As shown in Fig.3 the owner of spectrum resources uses the system to rent a portion of the spectrum resources to be used by the renters.)).
Regarding Claim 12, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, which is similar in scope to claim 2, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, which is similar in scope to claim 3, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, which is similar in scope to claim 4, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 16, which is similar in scope to claim 5, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, which is similar in scope to claim 8, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, which is similar in scope to claim 9, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 21, which is similar in scope to claim 10, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 23, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 24, which is similar in scope to claim 2 or claim 3, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 25, which is similar in scope to claim 5, thus rejected under the same rationale. Claim discloses “or” limitations and thus other limitations are reading optional and don’t have patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 26, which is similar in scope to claims 8 or claim 9 or claim 10, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 27, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 28, which is similar in scope to claim 2 or claim 3, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 29, which is similar in scope to claim 5, thus rejected under the same rationale. Claim discloses “or” limitations and thus other limitations are reading optional and don’t have patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 30, which is similar in scope to claim 8 or claim 9 or claim 10, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 17, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMPF (US-20210243612-A1) in view of Li (US-20170230824-A1) in view of RIVERA (US-20240235851-A1) in view of Henry (US-20190028892-A1) in further view of KOTARU (US-20230413308 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry do not disclose wherein the transmission that includes the second cryptographic checksum is associated with in-phase and quadrature (IQ) samples.
KOTARU discloses wherein the transmission that includes the second cryptographic checksum is associated with in-phase and quadrature (IQ) samples (paragraph [0036], "The disaggregated O-RAN architecture may provide access to in-phase and quadrature (IQ) samples received at a network entity such as a base station." (i.e., Examiner reading this limitation as the specific the transmission that is sending to O-RU is associated with in-phase and quadrature (IQ), and not necessary mean that the cryptographic checksum is associated with in-phase and quadrature (IQ) sample.)).
KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry and KOTARU are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Spectrum sharing arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KEMPF to implement KOTARU access to in-phase and quadrature (IQ) in order to mitigate interfering signals from other GAA users (paragraph [0036], "the present disclosure provides a system for identifying and mitigating interfering signals from other GAA users. The system may maintain and/or access a local spectrum access database of known GAA users to determine whether a portion of shared use spectrum is free from known local users in a geographic area. Unlike the SAS for higher tier users, the local spectrum access database may be voluntary and may be incomplete or outdated. The system may also detect other GAA users that are not in the local spectrum access database. The disaggregated O-RAN architecture may provide access to in-phase and quadrature (IQ) samples received at a network entity such as a base station. Such IQ samples were not previously available to a network operator, or the network operator had little control over processing of such IQ samples.").
Regarding Claim 17, which is similar in scope to claim 6, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 25, which is similar in scope to claim 6, thus rejected under the same rationale. Claim discloses “or” limitations and thus other limitations are reading optional and don’t have patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 29, which is similar in scope to claim 6, thus rejected under the same rationale. Claim discloses “or” limitations and thus other limitations are reading optional and don’t have patentable weight.
Claim(s) 7, 18, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMPF (US-20210243612-A1) in view of Li (US-20170230824-A1) in view of RIVERA (US-20240235851-A1) in view of Henry (US-20190028892-A1) in further view of DAMNJANOVIC (US-20190335337-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry do not disclose wherein the O-DU is a first O-DU, wherein the first O-DU is a prioritized O-DU, and wherein a second O-DU is a secondary O-DU.
DAMNJANOVIC discloses wherein the O-DU is a first O-DU, wherein the first O-DU is a prioritized O-DU, and wherein a second O-DU is a secondary O-DU (paragraph [0030], "The coordination can be among priority access license (PAL) users and/or general authorized access (GAA) users. For sharing among PAL users, the spectrum resource control unit can assign each PAL operator with exclusive access resources and prioritized shared access resources…Thus, a low-priority PAL operator may monitor the prioritized shared access resource for a reservation from a higher priority PAL operator and may only access the resource opportunistically when the higher priority operator does not utilize the resource." And paragraph [0076], “the spectrum resource control unit may rotate the priorities of the network operating entities (e.g., in a round-robin fashion) among the TXOPs 606 within a frame 602. In some embodiments, the spectrum resource control unit may assign the priorities based on traffic loading and/or requirements of the operators and/or any other pre-agreements with the operators.” (i.e., Examiner is reading PAL as O-DU and there is a priority and par.30 discloses there is a priority between the PAL.)).
KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry and DAMNJANOVIC are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Spectrum sharing arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KEMPF to implement the method as described in DAMNJANOVIC as is obvious to try to implement priority to certain mobile network operators than others, such as high demand or large number of users and DAMNJANOVIC provides a benefit to high priority wherein reduces interference thus improving QoS to operators (paragraph [0081], " As can be seen, a low-priority operator does not have guarantee access to a TXOP 606. Thus, to guarantee no interference to a high-priority operator, an operator may delay HARQ and/or CSI feedbacks. In NR, a parameter K is defined for the delay between a data reception and the transmission of a HARQ ACK/NACK corresponding to the data reception. Thus, a BS may adjust the value for the parameter K such that HARQ ACK/NACKs can be transmitted using resources with guaranteed access or exclusive access. ").
Regarding Claim 18, which is similar in scope to claim 7, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 25, which is similar in scope to claim 7, thus rejected under the same rationale. Claim discloses “or” limitations and thus other limitations are reading optional and don’t have patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 29, which is similar in scope to claim 7, thus rejected under the same rationale. Claim discloses “or” limitations and thus other limitations are reading optional and don’t have patentable weight.
Claim(s) 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMPF (US-20210243612-A1) in view of Li (US-20170230824-A1) in view of RIVERA (US-20240235851-A1) in view of Henry (US-20190028892-A1) in further view of ELREFAEY (US-20140171018-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry do not disclose wherein the grant is transmitted to the O-DU based at least in part on a conflict resulting from multiple O-DUs requesting same resources.
ELREFAEY discloses wherein the grant is transmitted to the O-DU based at least in part on a conflict resulting from multiple O-DUs requesting same resources (paragraph [0051], Fig.8, “Setting the pricing curve may be followed by determining spectrum availability based on requests to lease spectrum received from requestors in operation 804. For example, the amount of spectrum made available for lease by spectrum owners may be compared to the amount of spectrum requested in lease requests submitted by requestors (e.g., wireless service providers) … The bid may be received in terms of a lump sum, an amount per time period (e.g., per minute), conditional amounts (e.g., a higher bid for a specific bandwidth of radio spectrum and/or lease period with a lessor amount for less bandwidth and/or a shorter lease period)…For example, bids may be solicited from requestors based on an initial bid determined based on the pricing curve, and available spectrum may be allocated to requestors based on the highest bid to the lowest bid.” (i.e., Plurality of requesters are bidding for access of spectrum and spectrum is granted based on the highest bid.)).
KEMPF in view of Li in view of RIVERA in further view of Henry and ELREFAEY are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Spectrum sharing arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KEMPF to implement the method ELREFAEY because it’s beneficial to the spectrum renters to obtain more spectrum resources as providing payment for spectrum resources can increase the chances the spectrum owners share their resources for compensation (ELREFAEY, paragraph [0040], “This information may allow brokers to have an instant and precise status about the availability of radio spectrum to be rented to spectrum requestors or to be reclaimed by the spectrum owners.”).
Regarding Claim 22, which is similar in scope to claim 11, thus rejected under the same rationale.
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 Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights