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 .
Claims 1-10 are rejected. Claims 11-12 are cancelled.
Priority
The remarks 3/9/26 are acknowledged.
37 CFR 1.105
The remarks 3/9/26 are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 contains, sending, to the second UE, a second message for direct communication, wherein the second message is integrity protected, wherein the sending is performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass.
However, the specification does not support, receiving, from a second UE, a first message for direct communication, the first message, performing a first check …, performing second check … sending is performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass, sending, to the second UE, a second message for direct communication (another direct communication, line 11, claim 1, versus “direct communication” of line 3, claim 1).
Also, the claimed multiple “direct communication” is not limited to between first UE and second UE.
Also, the specification does not support, performing a first check that the first information received from the second UE is the same as first information that has been in the first UE since before the receipt of the first message, and then sending is performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass. The check is not limited to the information must be same.
Applicant’s below remarks are noted.
PNG
media_image1.png
656
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
216
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
628
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
334
736
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
660
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As seen above, there is no support for wherein the sending is performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass, that the checks must have passed even when the first message does not have an integrity protection. Outcome of performing a second check of an integrity protection on the first message is subject to fail when no integrity protection on the first message. The claimed subject matter does support that the second check must have integrity protection on the first message.
Claim 6 contains similar subject matter of claim 1 and hence subject to the same rejections.
Claims 2-5, 7-10 depend upon claims 1 and 6 and hence subject to the same rejections.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "sending, to the second UE, a second message for direct communication, wherein the second message is integrity protected, wherein the sending is performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass".
Claim 1 contains first check and second check. The claimed first message is open to “no integrity protection”. There is determination/comparison to conclude “pass”. Also, there is no outcome on what is considered as “pass” versus “not pass”, and hence, the claim is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Claim 1 recites "a second message for direct communication". The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function, i.e. which devices perform the direct communication. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the system in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Considering that “sending, to the second UE, a second message for direct communication, wherein the second message is integrity protected, wherein the sending is performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass” always happen. This implies, that the first information received from the second UE is always the same as first information that has been in the first UE since before the receipt of the first message; and an integrity protection on the first message. Hence, the claim is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, as the performing a first check and performing a second check would only result in the sending.
Claim 6 contains similar subject matter of claim 1 and hence subject to the same rejections.
Claims 2-5, 7-10 depend upon claims 1 and 6 and hence subject to the same rejections.
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 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 of this title, 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) 1-4, 6-9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broustis et al., 20130290696 in view of NEGI, 20160099814 and MA et al., WO 2013026359 A1.
Referring to claim(s) 1, 6, Broustis substantially discloses A first User Equipment (UE) for direct communication, the first UE comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory storing instructions that, if executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive, from a second UE, a first message including first information and second information, the second information being related to a session key; a communication method of a first User Equipment (UE), the communication method comprising: receiving, from a second UE, a first message, the first message including information, performing a second check of an integrity protection on the first message; and sending, to the second UE, a second message, wherein the second message is integrity protected, performing the second check before sending the second message, wherein the sending is performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass (
Note: the claim contains comprising and the sending is subject to performed besides the above mentioned result.
Note: BRI: The claimed interpretation requires that there is no integrity protection on the first message. Hence, the second check is that there is No integrity protection on the first message. Hence, the sending is not performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass.
[0062] descriptions have focused on scenarios involving two UEs, both the UEs receive the same PK, possession of PK implicitly authenticates a UE to other UE and also allows both UEs to verify that a particular UE is authorized to for communication.
[0056] Alice determines whether she would like to initiate communication with Bob.
[0061] Alice and Bob can start communication secured using PK. Alice and Bob are assured that the other party is authorized for communication, while with proving to each other the possession of PK, Alice and Bob are assured that they are communicating with each other. Similarly in this case, PK can be used by Alice and Bob either as a single key used for encryption and integrity protection of direct communication
[0051] Use of single key for all communication between the two UEs. With this option, Alice and Bob use PK directly for encrypting and/or integrity protecting traffic that flows on their direct communication link.
[0052] Use of separate key derivatives for encryption and integrity protection. Alice and Bob use PK for deriving separate keys for encryption (PK.sub.enc) and integrity protection (PK.sub.int). For this, two different KDFs can be used as follows:
PK.sub.enc=KDF.sub.1(PK,S), and PK.sub.int=KDF.sub.2(PK,S), where S is a string constructed using predetermined input parameters. In fact, each UE can derive PK.sub.enc and PK.sub.int by re-using the key derivation functions that are already implemented and used for derivation of other keys, such as K.sub.RRCenc, K.sub.RRCint, K.sub.UPint, and K.sub.UPenc. [0053] Each UE can use PK to derive an application-specific key PK.sub.A. Both UEs may contain multiple PK keys (one per application)
Broustis do not specifically mention about, which is well-known in the art, which Negi discloses, first information and second information, the second information being related to a session key; deriving a confidentiality key and an integrity key using the second information; performing a first check that the received first information is the same as first information in the first UE, performing the first check before sending the second message
[0031] In block 412, the second computing device 704 generates one or more session keys based on the shared Diffie-Hellman secret key. For example, the second computing device 704 may generate a session message key (SMK) in block 414. Additionally, the second computing device 704 may generate a session integrity key, a session confidentiality key, and/or other session keys in some embodiments. As discussed below, the session message key may be used to MAC messages between the first computing device 702 and the second computing device 704. The session integrity key, the session confidentiality key, and/or other session keys may be used, for example, for subsequent communications (i.e., communications after the first computing device 702 and the second computing device 704 are securely paired). In block 416, the second computing device 704 checks for key of the first computing device 702 based on the identification of the first computing device.
[0030] In block 408, the first computing device 702 transmits the Diffie-Hellman public key, DH.sub.pub1, and identification of the first computing device 702 to the second computing device 704. In block 410, the second computing device 704 generates a shared Diffie-Hellman secret key based on the Diffie-Hellman private key, DH.sub.priv2, of the second computing device 704 and the Diffie-Hellman public key, DH.sub.pub1, received from the first computing device 702. in other embodiments, another key exchange protocol may be used.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Broustis to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known session integrity key, a session confidentiality key, and/or other session keys. These keys would enable direction communication between two devices with security, without reliance on other devices such as PLMN, para 31.
Broustis, Negi do not specifically mention about, which is well-known in the art, which MA discloses, direct communication, performing a first check that the first information received from the second UE is the same as first information that has been in the first UE since before the receipt of the first message (
the Subframe indicate field indicates that the time period T is The UE can be used for data transmission of the subframe resource, and if another UE (such as UE 2) in the UE performing direct communication,...However, in consideration of reducing the resource overhead of the transmission scheduling information, the UE 2 may reuse some or all of the scheduling information sent by the UE 1 for scheduling. Information (such as resource indication information, indication information of the modulation and coding scheme MCS, etc.) is used to transmit data,
At this time, it can be considered that, in the time period T, other resources of the data transmission available to the UE 1 are data transmission resources available to the UE 2.
That is to say, UE 1 and UE 2 may share transmission resources such as the same or partially the same available physical resources, but it is still necessary to transmit data on the respective allocated subframes, 3rd para page 10
For example, if the UE performing the direct communication is the UE 1 and the UE 2, the transmission indicating is the physical resource indicated by the Resource ID or the Link ID in the UE 1 and the UE 2, and is the data transmission for the UE 1 (corresponding to UE2 receives), or is used for UE 2 data transmission (corresponding to UE1 reception). In a specific implementation, when there are only two UEs performing direct communication, one bit may be used to indicate whether the UE 201 performs data transmission or the UE 202 performs data transmission. For example, when the state of the pre-defined bit is 0, it indicates that the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data transmission by the UE 1, and correspondingly, the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data reception by the UE 2; The physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data transmission by the UE 2, and the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data reception by the UE 1 . In addition, for both parties to the communication, it is also possible to designate one party as a server and the other as a client. In this case, if the state of the bit is 0 in advance, it indicates that the control channel indicates The physical resource is used for sending data by the server. Correspondingly, the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for receiving data by the client. Alternatively, the physical resource indicated in the control channel may be defined when the status of the bit is 1. It is used for data transmission by the client. Correspondingly, the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data reception by the server, last para, page 7.
Hence, the UE1 and UE2 perform verifying of a message based on information of each of the UE1 and UE2 so that the message is not discarded.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Broustis to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known information at the devices. The information would facilitate verifying a message for further processing and not ignore the message during the direct communication among the UEs, last para, page 7.
As rejected above, sending the second message is performing after both the first check and the second check.
Claim(s) 2-4, 7-9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broustis in view of, NEGI, MA, Jabara US 20140108149 A1.
Referring to claim(s) 2, 7, Broustis, MA and NEGI do not disclose, which Jabara discloses receiving, from the second UE, a third message, wherein the third message is integrity protected, para 6, 12, 30, 31. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Broustis to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known integrity protection of the messages. These would enable direct communication between two devices with security, without reliance on other devices such as PLMN. The communicating of the messages with integrity protection would ensure that others would not be able to access information while the messages are being communication between the two UEs, para 30, 31.
Referring to claim(s) 3, 8, Jabara discloses the second message is confidentiality protected, para 6, 13, 30, 31. Negi discloses, deriving a confidentiality key using the second information, para 30, 31.
Referring to claim(s) 4, 9, Jabara discloses receiving, from the second UE, a third message, wherein the third message is integrity protected and confidentiality protected, para 30, 31. Negi discloses, deriving a confidentiality key using the second information, para 30, 31.
Claim(s) 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broustis in view of, NEGI, MA, Kondareddy et al., 20120308008 and Stiglic et al., 20150256336
Referring to claim(s) 5, 10, Broustis, Jabara and NEGI do not disclose the first message include information for an algorithm for key derivation, which Kondareddy discloses [0036] Keys and key information can be exchanged using various protocols and procedures, including those used in conjunction with the Diffie Hellman public-private key exchanges. In at least some embodiments the actual keys are not transferred, but information that can be used in conjunction with known algorithms is transmitted, allowing both the media content sink 234 to derive the key of media content source 220 and allowing media content source 222 to derive keys associated with media content sink 234.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Broustis to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known algorithm for key derivation regarding session integrity key, a session confidentiality key, and/or other session keys. These keys would enable direction communication between two devices with security, without reliance on other devices such as PLMN. The communication of the information associated with the algorithm for key derivation would enable both the devices to use the same algorithm for the mutual communication, para 36.
Broustis, MA, Kondareddy and NEGI do not disclose message including an algorithm, which Stiglic discloses [0016] In another embodiment, the present invention provides a method of transferring secure information from a first user system to a second user system, the method having the steps of securely registering a data owner with a third party, the data owner communicating with the third party from the second user system, sending a set of algorithms from the third party to the data owner on the second user system, deriving a strong key based on a master password and a set of algorithms, the master password known solely to the data owner and the set of algorithms provided solely by the third party, sending at least an encrypted symmetric encryption key set from third party to data owner on the second user system, the encrypted symmetric encryption key set being previously encrypted with the strong key using the first user system, decrypting the encrypted symmetric encryption key set with the strong key on the second user system, rendering at least one of the master password, the strong key and the decrypted symmetric encryption key set non-discoverable on the second user system, and deleting at least one of the master password, the strong key and the decrypted symmetric encryption key set from the second user system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Broustis to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known algorithm for key derivation regarding session integrity key, a session confidentiality key, and/or other session keys. These keys would enable direction communication between two devices with security, without reliance on other devices such as PLMN. The communicating of the algorithm would enable second device to receive it so that both the devices to use the same algorithm for the mutual communication, para 16.
Response to arguments:
Regarding claim 1, wherein the sending is performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass;
The claimed subject matter does not contain what is considered as “pass” versus “fail”. Also, the sending is not limited to that the it cannot be performed when the result that both the first check and the second check pass.
Regarding claim 1, performing a first check that the first information received from the second UE is the same as first information that has been in the first UE since before the receipt of the first message,
The claimed subject matter does not contain that the first information cannot be received after the receipt of the first message.
Regarding claim 1, Ma's processing relates to resource coordination and collision avoidance, which is functionally different from the security/identity verification required by claim 1 (e.g., message legitimacy verification or peer validation). See claim applicant has merely claimed “for direct communication”. Further, Ma is merely relied upon for
direct communication, performing a first check that the first information received from the second UE is the same as first information that has been in the first UE since before the receipt of the first message (
the Subframe indicate field indicates that the time period T is The UE can be used for data transmission of the subframe resource, and if another UE (such as UE 2) in the UE performing direct communication,...However, in consideration of reducing the resource overhead of the transmission scheduling information, the UE 2 may reuse some or all of the scheduling information sent by the UE 1 for scheduling. Information (such as resource indication information, indication information of the modulation and coding scheme MCS, etc.) is used to transmit data,
At this time, it can be considered that, in the time period T, other resources of the data transmission available to the UE 1 are data transmission resources available to the UE 2.
That is to say, UE 1 and UE 2 may share transmission resources such as the same or partially the same available physical resources, but it is still necessary to transmit data on the respective allocated subframes, 3rd para page 10
For example, if the UE performing the direct communication is the UE 1 and the UE 2, the transmission indicating is the physical resource indicated by the Resource ID or the Link ID in the UE 1 and the UE 2, and is the data transmission for the UE 1 (corresponding to UE2 receives), or is used for UE 2 data transmission (corresponding to UE1 reception). In a specific implementation, when there are only two UEs performing direct communication, one bit may be used to indicate whether the UE 201 performs data transmission or the UE 202 performs data transmission. For example, when the state of the pre-defined bit is 0, it indicates that the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data transmission by the UE 1, and correspondingly, the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data reception by the UE 2; The physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data transmission by the UE 2, and the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data reception by the UE 1 . In addition, for both parties to the communication, it is also possible to designate one party as a server and the other as a client. In this case, if the state of the bit is 0 in advance, it indicates that the control channel indicates The physical resource is used for sending data by the server. Correspondingly, the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for receiving data by the client. Alternatively, the physical resource indicated in the control channel may be defined when the status of the bit is 1. It is used for data transmission by the client. Correspondingly, the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data reception by the server, last para, page 7.
Broustis discloses A first User Equipment (UE) for direct communication, the first UE comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory storing instructions that, if executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive, from a second UE, a first message including first information and second information, the second information being related to a session key; a communication method of a first User Equipment (UE), the communication method comprising: receiving, from a second UE, a first message, the first message including information, performing a second check of an integrity protection on the first message; and sending, to the second UE, a second message, wherein the second message is integrity protected, performing the second check before sending the second message, wherein the sending is performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass (
Note: the claim contains comprising and the sending is subject to performed besides the above mentioned result.
Note: BRI: The claimed interpretation requires that there is no integrity protection on the first message. Hence, the second check is that there is No integrity protection on the first message. Hence, the sending is not performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass.
[0062] descriptions have focused on scenarios involving two UEs, both the UEs receive the same PK, possession of PK implicitly authenticates a UE to other UE and also allows both UEs to verify that a particular UE is authorized to for communication.
[0056] Alice determines whether she would like to initiate communication with Bob.
[0061] Alice and Bob can start communication secured using PK. Alice and Bob are assured that the other party is authorized for communication, while with proving to each other the possession of PK, Alice and Bob are assured that they are communicating with each other. Similarly in this case, PK can be used by Alice and Bob either as a single key used for encryption and integrity protection of direct communication
[0051] Use of single key for all communication between the two UEs. With this option, Alice and Bob use PK directly for encrypting and/or integrity protecting traffic that flows on their direct communication link.
[0052] Use of separate key derivatives for encryption and integrity protection. Alice and Bob use PK for deriving separate keys for encryption (PK.sub.enc) and integrity protection (PK.sub.int). For this, two different KDFs can be used as follows:
PK.sub.enc=KDF.sub.1(PK,S), and PK.sub.int=KDF.sub.2(PK,S), where S is a string constructed using predetermined input parameters. In fact, each UE can derive PK.sub.enc and PK.sub.int by re-using the key derivation functions that are already implemented and used for derivation of other keys, such as K.sub.RRCenc, K.sub.RRCint, K.sub.UPint, and K.sub.UPenc. [0053] Each UE can use PK to derive an application-specific key PK.sub.A. Both UEs may contain multiple PK keys (one per application)
Broustis do not specifically mention about, which is well-known in the art, which Negi discloses, first information and second information, the second information being related to a session key; deriving a confidentiality key and an integrity key using the second information; performing a first check that the received first information is the same as first information in the first UE, performing the first check before sending the second message
[0031] In block 412, the second computing device 704 generates one or more session keys based on the shared Diffie-Hellman secret key. For example, the second computing device 704 may generate a session message key (SMK) in block 414. Additionally, the second computing device 704 may generate a session integrity key, a session confidentiality key, and/or other session keys in some embodiments. As discussed below, the session message key may be used to MAC messages between the first computing device 702 and the second computing device 704. The session integrity key, the session confidentiality key, and/or other session keys may be used, for example, for subsequent communications (i.e., communications after the first computing device 702 and the second computing device 704 are securely paired). In block 416, the second computing device 704 checks for key of the first computing device 702 based on the identification of the first computing device.
[0030] In block 408, the first computing device 702 transmits the Diffie-Hellman public key, DH.sub.pub1, and identification of the first computing device 702 to the second computing device 704. In block 410, the second computing device 704 generates a shared Diffie-Hellman secret key based on the Diffie-Hellman private key, DH.sub.priv2, of the second computing device 704 and the Diffie-Hellman public key, DH.sub.pub1, received from the first computing device 702. in other embodiments, another key exchange protocol may be used.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Broustis to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known session integrity key, a session confidentiality key, and/or other session keys. These keys would enable direction communication between two devices with security, without reliance on other devices such as PLMN, para 31.
Broustis, Negi do not specifically mention about, which is well-known in the art, which MA discloses, direct communication, performing a first check that the first information received from the second UE is the same as first information that has been in the first UE since before the receipt of the first message (
the Subframe indicate field indicates that the time period T is The UE can be used for data transmission of the subframe resource, and if another UE (such as UE 2) in the UE performing direct communication,...However, in consideration of reducing the resource overhead of the transmission scheduling information, the UE 2 may reuse some or all of the scheduling information sent by the UE 1 for scheduling. Information (such as resource indication information, indication information of the modulation and coding scheme MCS, etc.) is used to transmit data,
At this time, it can be considered that, in the time period T, other resources of the data transmission available to the UE 1 are data transmission resources available to the UE 2.
That is to say, UE 1 and UE 2 may share transmission resources such as the same or partially the same available physical resources, but it is still necessary to transmit data on the respective allocated subframes, 3rd para page 10
For example, if the UE performing the direct communication is the UE 1 and the UE 2, the transmission indicating is the physical resource indicated by the Resource ID or the Link ID in the UE 1 and the UE 2, and is the data transmission for the UE 1 (corresponding to UE2 receives), or is used for UE 2 data transmission (corresponding to UE1 reception). In a specific implementation, when there are only two UEs performing direct communication, one bit may be used to indicate whether the UE 201 performs data transmission or the UE 202 performs data transmission. For example, when the state of the pre-defined bit is 0, it indicates that the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data transmission by the UE 1, and correspondingly, the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data reception by the UE 2; The physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data transmission by the UE 2, and the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data reception by the UE 1 . In addition, for both parties to the communication, it is also possible to designate one party as a server and the other as a client. In this case, if the state of the bit is 0 in advance, it indicates that the control channel indicates The physical resource is used for sending data by the server. Correspondingly, the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for receiving data by the client. Alternatively, the physical resource indicated in the control channel may be defined when the status of the bit is 1. It is used for data transmission by the client. Correspondingly, the physical resource indicated in the control channel is used for data reception by the server, last para, page 7.
Hence, the UE1 and UE2 perform verifying of a message based on information of each of the UE1 and UE2 so that the message is not discarded.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Broustis to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known information at the devices. The information would facilitate verifying a message for further processing and not ignore the message during the direct communication among the UEs, last para, page 7.
As rejected above, sending the second message is performing after both the first check and the second check.
Conclusion
Amended claim 1 contains, sending, to the second UE, a second message for direct communication, wherein the second message is integrity protected, wherein the sending is performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass.
However, the amendments are still open to allowing the sending to happen, even when the sending is not performed in response to a result that both the first check and the second check pass.
Also, the claimed subject matter does not limit that the first message and second messages must pass.
Pertinent reference:
Nyberg, 20080253562, discloses, group key identification (group key identifier, group identifier, random numbers to identify shared group key, para, 39, 36, 32.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3973. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado, can be reached at (571) 272-7624. 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.
/HARESH N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496