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 .
The Amendment filed 24 February 2026 has been received and considered.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
This Action is Final.
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 1-5, 11, 12, 16- 20, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US 20090028262) in view of Hessler et al. (US 20220182832) and further in view of Baligh et al. (US 20170064546).
As per claims 1, 3, 11, 16, 18, and 26, Imai et al. discloses an apparatus with memory and processor (see, for example, paragraph [0087] where a base station and mobile device must have a processor and memory to perform the steps) and a method comprising: encoding or modify at least one secret key including one or more secret key bits based on at least one of a bitmap, a hash function, or a polynomial, such that the one or more secret key bits correspond to one or more verification bits, the at least one secret key being associated with communication with a second wireless device (see paragraphs [0095]-[0097] the use of a hash of the secret key),
transmitting/receiving, to the second wireless device, an indication of the one or more verification bits, decoding the one or more verification bits based on at least one of a bitmap, a hash function, or a polynomial, such that the decoded one or more verification bits correspond to one or and transmitting/receiving, from the second wireless device, feedback corresponding to the one or more verification bits (see paragraphs [0097]-[0102] where the hashes are verified and a confirmation is sent/received when they are verified).
Imai et al. generally discloses the selection of resources, but fails to explicitly disclose to select at least one resource of a plurality of resources for the communication of the one or more verification bits based on at least one of: a source identifier (ID) of the first wireless device, a destination ID of the second wireless device, or the encoded or modified at least one secret key, wherein the indication of the one or more verification bits is transmitted via the selected at least one resource.
However, Hessler et al. teaches to select at least one resource of a plurality of resources for the communication of the one or more verification bits based on at least one of: a source identifier (ID) of the first wireless device, a destination ID of the second wireless device, or the encoded or modified at least one secret key, wherein the indication of the one or more verification bits is transmitted via the selected at least one resource (see paragraph [0108] where the resource selection is made based on authentication, i.e. verification information; see also paragraphs [0036]-[0038] and [0105]-[0108]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the resource selection of Hessler et al. in the Imai et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to only allow verified communications thereby improving the security of the system.
The modified Imai et al. and Hessler et al. system fails to explicitly disclose that the resources is associated and selected based the at least one secret key.
However, Baligh et al. teaches a system that performs a hash on a secret key and connection information where the generated hash is used for selecting a resource for use in communication between entities based a secret key (see paragraphs [0049]-[0054] where the hash, i.e. verification information, is based on the secret key since the secret key is part of the hash and this has is used to select resources on which to send the hashed value).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the resource of the modified Imai et al. and Hessler et al. system based on the secret key.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to increase the security by obfuscating the resource selection based on information only known to the entities communicating.
As per claims 2 and 17, the modified Imai et al., Hessler et al., and Baligh et al. system discloses a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the first wireless device is a UE or a base station (see Imai et al. paragraphs [0087]-[0097]).
As per claims 4, 5, 19, and 20, the modified Imai et al., Hessler et al., and Baligh et al. system discloses to obtain the at least one secret key including the one or more secret key bits for the communication with the second wireless device, wherein the at least one secret key is generated based on channel randomness or obtained from a third wireless device (see Imai et al. paragraphs [0094]-[0095]).
As per claims 12 and 27, the modified Imai et al., Hessler et al., and Baligh et al. system discloses obtaining the at least one secret key including the one or more secret key bits for the communication with the first wireless device (see Imai et al. paragraphs [0093]-[0097]).
Claims 6-8, 13, 14, 21-23, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Imai et al., Hessler et al., and Baligh et al. system as applied to claims 1, 11, 16, and 26 above, in view of You et al. (US 20220386192).
As per claims 6-8, 13, 14, 21-23, 28, and 29, the modified Imai et al., Hessler et al., and Baligh et al. system discloses the feedback is an acknowledgement (ACK) or a negative ACK (NACK), wherein the feedback is the NACK, and the at least one processor and the memory are further configured to re-configure the at least one secret key including the one or more secret key bits based on at least one of the bitmap, the hash function, or the polynomial and, wherein to re-configure the at least one secret key, the at least one processor and the memory are configured to at least one of: receive one or more reference signal resources for key determination; increase one or more resource repetitions or use a reference signal with a higher repetition; or increase a transmission power of the reference signal (see paragraphs [0097]-[0102] where then the keys do not match the process is repeated with the channel information, i.e. resource repetitions and signals).
The modified Imai et al., Hessler et al., and Baligh et al. system fails to explicitly disclose these steps are in response to the ACK/NACK being received via at least one of sidelink control information (SCI), uplink control information (UCI), or downlink control information (DCI).
However, You et al. teaches performing reconfiguration in response to a message received via at least one of sidelink control information (SCI), uplink control information (UCI), or downlink control information (DCI) (see paragraphs [0054]-[0057]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the messages of the modified Imai et al., Hessler et al., and Baligh et al. system via control information messages.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to simplify the system by using well-known and common messaging.
Claims 9, 10, 15, 24, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Imai et al., Hessler et al., and Baligh et al. system as applied to claims 1, 11, 16, and 26 above, in view of Niemi et al. (US 7246242).
As per claims 9, 10, 15, 24, 25, and 30, the modified Imai et al., Hessler et al., and Baligh et al. system discloses feedback for verification bits associated with a secured key, but fails to explicitly disclose the feedback includes an identifier of the at least one secret key associated with the one or more verification bits, wherein the feedback is received via at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) message or a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (MAC-CE).
However, Niemi et al. teaches the use of a key identifier included in RRC messages (see column 6 lines 12-44).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a key identifier in the feedback message transmitted via an RRC message in the modified Imai et al., Hessler et al., and Baligh et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to ensure the correct key is being verified while using common and well-known messaging protocols.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining reference(s) relate to using secret keys in wireless resource selection.
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 MICHAEL J PYZOCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/Michael Pyzocha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409