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 Remarks
This Office action is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed 08/07/2026.
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The previous specification objections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose “the first key to be used for the confidentiality algorithm and the second key to be used for the integrity algorithm are applied to both the PC5-S signaling and the PC5 RRC signaling” as claimed, as Perras disclose a first key for U-plane and second key for C-plane which are derived separately (pages 7-10, Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Examiner cited at para. 0116-0117, a first and second C-plane key [the citation specifically says “one or more C-plane keys”] is derived from RRC layer information, (i.e. PC5 RRC as claimed) and DCR messaging which is PC5-S messaging (i.e. PC5-S signaling as claimed), and para. 0086 mentions they may pertain to confidentiality or integrity, and specifically that keys are used to protect the transfer of data between the WTRUs. Hence, key generation from RRC and PC5 information is protection of that information, and there are at least two keys generated at the C-plane. Examiner does not refer to the U-plane for the independent claim rejections contrary to Applicant’s allegations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., in the case of the claimed invention, the SL RBs of PC5-S and PC5-RRC are different (page 11, Remarks)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 4 and 10 recite limitations to SL-SRBs 1-3, but do not claim them as being different. Numbering is just a convention, and does not denote difference. Furthermore, the term “comprises” is open ended and an SRB for PC5-S may also be used for PC5 RRC. See MPEP 2111.03: The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.
Applicant argues Agiwal states a PDCP counter is for packet transmission, but not which bearer it belongs to (page 12, Remarks).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Perras at para. 0010 discloses “a PDCP entity handling security on the C-plane (e.g., the bearers of the C-plane).” The PDCP counter of Agiwal further modifies the PDCP entity for bearers of Perras.
Applicant argues that all claims are allowable (pages 13-14, Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the Claim Rejections section for details.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0174481 A1 to Perras et al. (“Perras”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0205555 A1 to AGIWAL et al. (“Agiwal”).
As to claims 1-2, 4-6, see similar rejections to claims 7-8, 10-12, respectively. The apparatus teaches the methods.
As to claim 7, Perras discloses a terminal in a wireless communication system (fig. 4, WTRU 2), the terminal comprising: a transceiver (fig. 1B, para. 0037, transmit/receive element 122); and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to (fig. 1B, para. 0036, controller): generate a first key to be used in a confidentiality algorithm for protecting a PC5-S signaling and a PC5 RRC (radio resource control) signaling (fig. 4, para. 0116-0117, At 430, for example, the MAC/RRC layer/entity 315B (i.e. PC5 RRC) of the second WTRU 102b may use information of the first WTRU 102a via the DCR message (para. 0107, PC5-S…e.g. DCR) and its own information to derive keys (e.g., one or more C-plane keys) to be used by the PDCP entity 310B/320B for the C-plane; para. 0086, confidentiality and/or integrity algorithms) and a second key to be used in an integrity algorithm for protecting the PC5-S signaling and the PC5 RRC signaling (fig. 4, para. 0116-0117, At 430, for example, the MAC/RRC layer/entity 315B (i.e. PC5 RRC) of the second WTRU 102b may use information of the first WTRU 102a via the DCR message (para. 0107 PC5-S…e.g. DCR) and its own information to derive keys (e.g., one or more C-plane keys (i.e. the more of the keys implies at least a second key)) to be used by the PDCP entity 310B/320B for the C-plane; para. 0086, confidentiality and/or integrity algorithms), and apply the first key to at least one of the PC5-S signaling or the PC5 RRC signaling (fig. 4, para. 0116-0117, At 430, for example, the MAC/RRC layer/entity 315B (i.e. PC5 RRC) of the second WTRU 102b may use information of the first WTRU 102a via the DCR message (para. 0107 PC5-S…e.g. DCR) and its own information to derive keys (e.g., one or more C-plane keys (i.e. more implies there is at least two keys meaning both a first and second key)) to be used by the PDCP entity 310B/320B for the C-plane) or apply the second key to at least one of the PC5-S signaling or the PC5 RRC signaling (fig. 4, para. 0116-0117, At 430, for example, the MAC/RRC layer/entity 315B (i.e. PC5 RRC) of the second WTRU 102b may use information of the first WTRU 102a via the DCR message (para. 0107 PC5-S…e.g. DCR) and its own information to derive keys (e.g., one or more C-plane keys (i.e. the more of the keys implies at least a second key)) to be used by the PDCP entity 310B/320B for the C-plane; para. 0086, confidentiality and/or integrity algorithms), and apply the first key to at least one of the PC5-S signaling or the PC5 RRC signaling (fig. 4, para. 0116-0117, At 430, for example, the MAC/RRC layer/entity 315B (i.e. PC5 RRC) of the second WTRU 102b may use information of the first WTRU 102a via the DCR message (para. 0107 PC5-S…e.g. DCR) and its own information to derive keys (e.g., one or more C-plane keys (i.e. more implies there is at least two keys meaning both a first and second key)) to be used by the PDCP entity 310B/320B for the C-plane),
wherein a keying procedure is initiated for a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) bearer carrying the PC5-S signalling or the PC5 RRC (para. 0117, fig. 4, the MAC/RRC layer/entity 315B of the second WTRU 102b may use information of the first WTRU 102a via the DCR message and its own information to derive keys (e.g., one or more C-plane keys) to be used by the PDCP entity 310B/320B for the C-plane; para. 0110 PDCP entity handling security on the C-plane (e.g., the bearers of the C-plane)).
Perras does not expressly disclose a rekeying procedure is initiated in case that a counter for a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) bearer carrying the PC5-S signaling or the PC5 RRC signaling rolls over.
Agiwal discloses at para. 0010: In order to support the security for the D2D communication a proximity-based service (ProSe) group key (PGK) is defined. The PGK is specific to a group of D2D UEs. Multiple PGKs per group may be pre-provisioned in the UE. Each of these PGKs for a same group is identified using a PGK ID (usually, 8 bits in size). Each PGK also has an expiry time associated with the PKG. If the UE wants to send data packets to a group, then the UE derives a ProSe traffic key (PTK) from the PGK corresponding to that group. The PTK is identified using PTK ID. The PTK is a group member specific key generated from the PGK. Each PTK is also associated with a PTK ID counter (usually, 16 bits in size). For encrypting data the combination of <PTK, packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) counter> is unique. The PDCP counter is updated for every packet transmitted. If the PDCP counter rolls over, then a new PTK is generated from the PGK.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the PDCP counter of Agiwal into the invention of Perras. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate a ProSe encryption key (Agiwal, para. 0010). Including the PDCP counter of Agiwal into the invention of Perras was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Agiwal.
As to claim 8, Perras and Agiwal further discloses the terminal of claim 7, wherein the first key and the second key are derived from a key that is derived by the terminal from a root key (Perras, para. 0086, A number of layers of keys may be used in various communications. For example, four different layers of keys may be used (i.e. lowest being the root) in a ProSe direct one-to-one communication including: (1) K.sub.D that may be a N-bit (e.g., 256 bit) root key that may be shared between the two entities communicating using ProSe Direct one-to-one communication; (2) K.sub.D ID that may be used to identify K.sub.D; (3) K.sub.D-sess that may be an N-bit (e.g., 256 bit) key which may be the root of the actual security context that is being used to protect the transfer of data between the WTRUs 102. The keys that are used in the confidentiality and integrity algorithms may be derived from K.sub.D-sess, as an intermediate key; (4) a 16-bit K.sub.D-sess ID that may identify the K.sub.D-sess; (5) PEK and/or PIK (the ProSe Encryption Key (PEK) and/or the ProSe Integrity Key (PIK)) which may be session keys used in the chosen confidentiality and/or integrity algorithms, respectively, to protect ProSe direct one-to-one communication over the PC5 interface. PEK and/or PIK may be derived from the intermediate key K.sub.D-sess). In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 7 applies.
As to claim 10, Perras and Agiwal further discloses the terminal of claim 7, wherein the PDCP bearer comprises at least one of SL-SRB 1 (sidelink signaling radio bearer 1) for transmitting the PC5-S signaling (Perras, para. 0110 PDCP entity handling security on the C-plane (e.g., the bearers of the C-plane); para. 0105, It is also contemplated that PC5-S messages are alternatively sent over a C-plane (e.g., using a signaling radio bearer (SRB))), SL SRB 2 for transmitting the PC5-S signaling (Perras, para. 0110 PDCP entity handling security on the C-plane (e.g., the bearers of the C-plane); para. 0105, It is also contemplated that PC5-S messages are alternatively sent over a C-plane (e.g., using a signaling radio bearer (SRB) (i.e. numbering “SRB 2” being arbitrary))), or SL-SRB 3 for transmitting the PC5 RRC signaling. In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 7 applies.
As to claim 11, Perras and Agiwal further discloses the terminal of claim 7, wherein the first key is further used in the confidentiality algorithm for protecting PC5 user plane data, and the second key is further used in the integrity algorithm for protecting the PC5 user plane data (Perras, para. 0116-0117, At 430, for example, the MAC/RRC layer/entity 315B (i.e. PC5 RRC) of the second WTRU 102b may use information of the first WTRU 102a via the DCR message (para. 0107 PC5-S…e.g. DCR) and its own information to derive keys (e.g., one or more C-plane keys (i.e. more implies there is at least two keys meaning both a first and second key)) to be used by the PDCP entity 310B/320B for the C-plane; para. 0136 In certain representative embodiments, the PC5 signaling may be replaced with an RRC protocol for the unicast link establishment. For example, the V2X layer may trigger the RRC layer to establish the communication and establish the security. The V2X layer may provide parameters indicating the connection type, (e.g., “U-plane + C-plane” or “C-plane only”, among others). The RRC layer may be responsible to setup the C-plane and/or the U-plane). In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 7 applies.
As to claim 12, Perras does not expressly disclose the terminal of claim 7, wherein the the first key and the second key is generated using a key derivation function (KDF) with predetermined parameters for sidelink communication.
Agiwal discloses at para. 0010: In order to support the security for the D2D communication a proximity-based service (ProSe) group key (PGK) is defined. The PGK is specific to a group of D2D UEs (i.e. sidelink). Multiple PGKs per group may be pre-provisioned in the UE. Each of these PGKs for a same group is identified using a PGK ID (usually, 8 bits in size). Each PGK also has an expiry time associated with the PKG. If the UE wants to send data packets to a group, then the UE derives a ProSe traffic key (PTK) from the PGK corresponding to that group. The PTK is identified using PTK ID. The PTK is a group member specific key generated from the PGK. Each PTK is also associated with a PTK ID counter (usually, 16 bits in size). For encrypting data the combination of <PTK, packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) counter> is unique. The PDCP counter is updated for every packet transmitted. If the PDCP counter rolls over, then a new PTK is generated from the PGK. PTK=key derivation function (KDF) (PGK, PTK ID, group member identity of transmitter). A ProSe encryption key (PEK) is also generated whenever PTK is generated. PEK=KDF (PTK, algorithm ID).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the KDF of Agiwal into the invention of Perras. The suggestion/motivation would have been to generate a ProSe encryption key (Agiwal, para. 0010). Including the KDF of Agiwal into the invention of Perras was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Agiwal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. From a prior Office action:
US 20210045093 A1 at para. 0115 discloses: in the SL, the PC5-RRC connection can be established during PC5-Signalling (PC5-S) connection establishment procedure and can be used in unicast transmissions between any two UEs to exchange AS-layer configuration (i.e. L2 ID, UE ID, SL-RB configuration) and UE capability information (e.g. configured SL carriers). PC5-RRC type messages can be transmitted via an SL-SRB which is configured during connection establishment with an L2 protocol stack (comprising SDAP, PDCP, RLC, MAC and PHY sublayers) and corresponding parameters (e.g. security keys, packet duplication, RLC (acknowledged mode (AM), unacknowledged mode (UM)) mode, LCG, prioritization, LCID) in both the Tx UE and Rx UE.
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 OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights