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 .
Claim status
Claims 1-27 are currently pending for examination.
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 1-8, 13, 21 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (Ding; US 2015/0271672).
For claim 1, Ding discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
a memory comprising instructions; and
one or more processors, individually or collectively, configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to:
obtain an encrypted payload of a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (MPDU) transmitted from a first wireless node and intended for a second wireless node, wherein a wireless association between the apparatus and the second wireless node is with respect to the first wireless node [E.g. 0091: FIG. 6 is a schematic flowchart of a packet processing method according to another embodiment of the present invention, where the method is applied to a scenario in which a relay device forwards a packet between a first node and a second node, 0029: the second packet further includes relay message authentication information, where the relay message authentication information is generated by the second node by using a message authentication key between the relay device and the second node; after receiving the second packet, the relay device verifies the relay message authentication information by using the message authentication key and sends the first packet to the first node if the verification succeeds, 0090, 0092 ; and
forward the obtained encrypted payload to the second wireless node [E.g. 0090: In this embodiment of the present invention, a second node generates second additional authentication data according to address information in a second packet by using a second rule, encrypts data in the second packet by using the second additional authentication data and a session key between a first node and the second node, and then sends the second packet to a relay device, so that the relay device directly adds the encrypted data in the second packet to a first packet without decrypting the encrypted data in the second packet, and sends the first packet to the first node; therefore the first node generates first additional authentication data according to address information in the first packet by using a first rule, where the first additional authentication data generated by using the first rule is the same as the second additional authentication data generated by using the second rule; the first node decrypts the encrypted data in the first packet by using the first additional authentication data and the session key between the first node and the second node. In this way, the relay device can skip a process of performing decryption first and performing encryption next in a process of forwarding the encrypted packet, thereby saving a packet processing time, improving channel utilization, and reducing additional power consumption of the relay device, 0094: after receiving the second packet sent by the second node, the relay device can directly fill the encrypted data into a Data part in the first packet without decrypting the encrypted data in the second packet, and fill the address information in the packet header of the first packet as follows: a receiving address A1 also being a destination address is an address of the first node, a sending address A2 is an address of the relay device, and a source address A3 is an address of the second node. Then, the relay device sends the first packet to the first node].
For claim 2, Ding discloses wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to obtain at least one of: a MAC header associated with the MPDU or a message integrity code (MIC) associated with the MPDU [E.g. 0054: FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a frame format, of a packet encrypted by using the CCMP, applied to an embodiment of the present invention. A packet header is usually referred to as a Media Access Control (MAC) header. As shown in FIG. 1, a MAC header and a CCMP Header participate in an encryption calculation, but are not encrypted themselves; data and a message integrity code (MIC) that are in a to-be-sent packet are encrypted; a frame check sequence (FCS) is used to check whether an error occurs in a frame in a transmission process. A frame format, of a packet encrypted by using the CCMP, applicable to this embodiment of the present invention is not limited to the frame format shown in FIG. 1, 0055: In an actual application, before encrypting, by using a CCMP algorithm, data and an MIC that are in a to-be-sent packet, an AP or a STA needs to generate additional authentication data (AAD) by using address information in a MAC header of the to-be-sent packet. FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a format of a MAC header applied to an embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 2, the MAC header includes multiple pieces of address information, where a sequence of addresses included in the address information is an address A1, an address A2, an address A3, and an address A4, where A1 is a receiving address, that is, an address of a node that currently receives a packet; A2 is a sending address, that is, an address of a node that currently sends a packet. When a destination address is the receiving address, the destination address does not need to be written in the MAC header; or when a destination address is not the receiving address, A3 is the destination address; the destination address is usually an address of a node that next receives a packet. When a source address is the sending address, the source address does not need to be written in the MAC header; or when a source address is not the sending address, the source address needs to be written in A3 or A4; the source address is usually an address of a node that previously sends a packet. The format, of a MAC header, applicable to this embodiment of the present invention is not limited to the format shown in FIG. 2].
For claim 3, Ding discloses wherein: the MAC header is further associated with at least one of: a transmitter address (TA) corresponding to an immediate sender of the MPDU [E.g. 00053-0055], a receiver address (RA) corresponding to an immediate receiver of the MPDU, a source address (SA) corresponding to an original source of the MPDU, a destination address (DA) corresponding to a final recipient of the MPDU, a sequence number (SN) associated with the MPDU, or a packet number (PN) associated with the MPDU; and the MIC is further associated with at least one of: the MAC header [E.g. 0053-0055] or a per-hop integrity key.
For claim 4, The examiner elected the embodiment of “a transmitter address (TA) corresponding to an immediate sender of the MPDU” as selected from the embodiments of t least one of: a transmitter address (TA) corresponding to an immediate sender of the MPDU, a receiver address (RA) corresponding to an immediate receiver of the MPDU, a source address (SA) corresponding to an original source of the MPDU, a destination address (DA) corresponding to a final recipient of the MPDU, a sequence number (SN) associated with the MPDU, or a packet number (PN) associated with the MPDU in claim 3. Therefore, those limitations are not examined.
For claim 5, The examiner elected the embodiment of “a transmitter address (TA) corresponding to an immediate sender of the MPDU” as selected from the embodiments of t least one of: a transmitter address (TA) corresponding to an immediate sender of the MPDU, a receiver address (RA) corresponding to an immediate receiver of the MPDU, a source address (SA) corresponding to an original source of the MPDU, a destination address (DA) corresponding to a final recipient of the MPDU, a sequence number (SN) associated with the MPDU, or a packet number (PN) associated with the MPDU in claim 3. Therefore, those limitations are not examined.
For claim 6, Ding discloses wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: verify the MIC using information associated with the MAC header; and place, after verifying the MIC, the encrypted payload in a buffer associated with the apparatus [E.g. 0054-0055].
For claim 7, Ding discloses wherein, at least one of: the MIC is further associated with at least one of: a new key or a new packet number (PN) [E.g. 0054-0055], the new PN is associated with the MPDU, the new key is different from a key configured for regular data encryption, the new PN is different from a PN configured for the regular data encryption, or the new PN associated with the MPDU is incremented each time at least one of: a new MAC header is created or a new MIC is created.
For claim 8, Ding discloses wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: verify the MIC using information associated with the new PN, and accept, after verifying the MIC, the encrypted payload [E.g. 0054-0055].
For claim 13, Ding discloses at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one transceiver is configured to: receive the encrypted payload and transmit the encrypted payload, and wherein the apparatus is configured as an access point (AP) [E.g. 0004, 0091-0097, Figs. 4 and 6].
For claim 21, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
For claim 23, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 3.
For claim 24, Ding discloses wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: compute a message integrity code (MIC) associated with the MPDU, wherein the MIC is further associated with at least one of: the MAC header [E.g. 0053-0055] or a per-hop integrity key
For claim 25, Ding discloses wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to output at least one of: the MIC or the MAC header [E.g. 0053-0055].
For claim 26, Ding discloses at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one transceiver is configured to transmit the encrypted payload, and wherein the apparatus is configured as an access point (AP) [E.g. 0004, 0091-0097, Figs. 4 and 6].
For claim 27, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
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 9-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Yang (US 2024/0088988).
For claim 9, Ding fails to expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: output a block acknowledgement (BA) indicating one or more bits providing an acknowledgment feedback for the encrypted payload to the first wireless node, wherein the BA is associated with a BA agreement between the first wireless node and the second wireless node.
However, as shown by Yang, it was well known in the art of wireless communication to include outputting a block acknowledgement (BA) indicating one or more bits providing an acknowledgment feedback for encrypted payload to first wireless node, wherein the BA is associated with a BA agreement between the first wireless node and the second wireless node [E.g. 0092-0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wireless communication before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Ding with the teaching of Yang in order to increases network efficiency and throughput by reducing protocol overhead, also it is merely combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
For claim 10, Yang further teaches wherein: the acknowledgment feedback indicates a positive acknowledgment when the MPDU is successfully obtained at the apparatus [E.g. 0094-0096].
For claim 11, Yang further teaches wherein the acknowledgment feedback indicates a negative acknowledgment when the MPDU is not successfully obtained at the apparatus, and wherein the acknowledgment feedback further indicates an identification (ID) of the MPDU [E.g. 0093-0096].
For claim 14, Ding fails to expressly disclose wherein: the AP is associated with a backhaul STA (bSTA), and the bSTA associates the AP with the first wireless node.
However, as shown by Yang, it was well known in the art of wireless communication to include wherein AP is associated with a backhaul STA (bSTA), and the bSTA associates the AP with the first wireless node [E.g. 0059-0066, Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wireless communication before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Ding with the teaching of Yang in order to extend wireless coverage without cabling, also it is merely combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
For claim 15, Yang further teaches wherein: the AP is associated with a backhaul basic service set (bBSS), the bBSS associates the AP with the second wireless node, and the bSTA forwards the encrypted payload to the bBSS [E.g. 0059-0066, Fig. 2].
For claim 16, Ding fails to expressly disclose wherein the AP is associated with a proxy station (pSTA) and at least one of: the pSTA is associated with a single mobility domain (SMD) access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD), the pSTA manages a block acknowledgement (BA) session for outputting one or more BAs, the pSTA is associated with one or more pSTA instances, each of the one or more pSTA instances is associated with a wireless station (STA), or the pSTA embeds an association identification (AID) within the MPDU transmitted from the pSTA.
However, as shown by Yang, it was well known in the art of wireless communication to include wherein the AP is associated with a proxy station (pSTA) and at least one of: the pSTA is associated with one or more pSTA instances [E.g. 0059-0066, Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wireless communication before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Ding with the teaching of Yang in order to provide improved channel efficiency and reduced overhead, also it is merely combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
For claim 17, Ding fails to expressly disclose wherein at least one of: the apparatus is positioned between the first wireless node and a client wireless node; the second wireless node is positioned between the first wireless node and the client wireless node; the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to establish a first block acknowledgement (BA) session with the second wireless node for an end-to-end communication flow from the first wireless node to the client wireless node; or the first BA session is different from a second BA session between the first wireless node and the client wireless node.
However, as shown by Yang, it was well known in the art of wireless communication to include wherein at least one of: first BA session is different from a second BA session between first wireless node and client wireless node [E.g. 0092-0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wireless communication before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Ding with the teaching of Yang in order to provide improved communication efficiency, also it is merely combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Asterjadhi et al. (Asterjadhi; US 2021/0006361).
For claim 18, Ding fails to expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to, at least one of: randomly obtain one or more MPDUs, in accordance with a status of a link between the apparatus and the second wireless node; or output a negative acknowledgment indicating that the one or more MPDUs are not successfully obtained at the apparatus.
However, as shown by Asterjadhi, it was well known in the art of wireless communication to include outputting a negative acknowledgment indicating that one or more MPDUs are not successfully obtained at the apparatus [E.g. 0182, 0193-0195, 0086-0087, Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wireless communication before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Ding with the teaching of Asterjadhi in order to provide immediate error signaling to ensure high data reliability, also it is merely combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Ho et al. (Ho; US 2021/0100051).
For claim 22, Ding fails to expressly disclose wherein the payload of the MPDU is encrypted using a pairwise transient key (PTK) associated with the apparatus and the first wireless node.
However, as shown by Ho, it was well known in the art of wireless communication to include wherein the payload of the MPDU is encrypted using a pairwise transient key (PTK) associated with the apparatus and the first wireless node [E.g. 0081-0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wireless communication before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Ding with the teaching of Ho in order to help enhance security and improve performance of the wireless communication system, also it is merely combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689