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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the communication filed on February 13, 2024.
Claims 1-12, 25, and 29 have been examined.
Claims cancelled 13-24, and 26-28.
Drawings
The drawings filed on February 13, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/683316, filed on February 13, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 12, 2024, December 04, 2024, June 30, 2025, and January 14, 2026 were filed after the mailing date of the application 18/683316 on February 13, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because of claim 29 is being directed to a "computer program product". There is not found within the Applicant's Specification support for said “computer program product” being limited to a statutory embodiment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media (or non-transitory media) and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (or absent of a controlling definition in the specification). See MPEP §2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, and 8-12, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2020/0015088 A1 / or “Luo” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses “A data transmission protection method, wherein the method comprises” (Para 0007: data security processing method):
“sending, by a first node to a second node, information representing a security protection capability supported by the first node” (Para 0015: the second base station receives security capability information i.e., a “security protection capability” sent by the first base station),
“wherein the information representing the security protection capability supported by the first node is used by the second node to perform integrity verification on data from the first node” (Para 0015; and 0018: integrity protection is performed).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Luo discloses “wherein the first node sends a security parameter of the first node to the second node through a communication interface setup request message” (Para 0186: key is distributed in UE context connection setup request);
“and the security parameter of the first node represents the information about the security protection capability supported by the first node” (Para 0185: security capability is sent).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 2, Luo discloses “wherein the communication interface setup request message is an Xn interface setup request message” (Para 0139: connection established through X-n interface; and Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Luo discloses “wherein the first node sends a security parameter of the first node to the second node through a configuration update message; and the security parameter of the first node represents the information about the security protection capability supported by the first node” (Para 0141: reconnect using MAC-I based on C-RNTI; and Para 0139: new radio).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 4, Luo discloses “wherein the configuration update message is a next generation radio access network node configuration update message, and the method further comprises: receiving, by the first node, a next generation radio access network node configuration update acknowledge message from the second node” (Para 0141: reconnect using MAC-I based on C-RNTI; and Para 0139: new radio; and Para 0141: after radio resource control (RRC) failure RRC reestablishment is done).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Luo discloses “wherein the method further comprises: when there is an update of the security protection capability supported by the first node, sending, by the first node to the second node, information representing a latest security protection capability supported by the first node” (Para 0015: the second base station receives security capability information i.e., a “security protection capability” sent by the first base station).
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 1, Luo discloses “wherein the security parameter of the first node comprises a first index identifier, and the first index identifier represents an integrity protection algorithm and an integrity key calculation parameter that are supported by the first node” (Para 0029: security algorithm and key derivation).
Regarding claim 9, in view of claim 1, Luo discloses “wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the first node, a radio resource control resume request message from user equipment UE, wherein the radio resource control resume request message comprises an inactive radio network temporary identifier I-RNTI, a message authentication code for integrity MAC-I, and a request cause” (Para 0141: reconnect using MAC-I based on C-RNTI; and Para 0139: new radio);
“determining, by the first node, that an anchor base station of the UE is the second node; and sending, by the first node, a retrieve UE context request message to the second node, wherein the retrieve UE context request message carries a cell identifier of a target cell, the I- RNTI, the MAC-I, and the request cause” (Para 0218-0220: cell identifier, MAC-I, and RNTI, resume identifier).
Regarding claim 10, in view of claim 9, Luo discloses “wherein the radio resource control resume request message and the retrieve UE context request message further carry a second index identifier, and the second index identifier represents an integrity protection algorithm and an integrity key calculation parameter that are used by the UE to perform security protection on the radio resource control resume request message” (Para 0218-0220: cell identifier, MAC-I, and RNTI, resume identifier).
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 10, Luo discloses “wherein the retrieve UE context request message comprises a message body container, and the container encapsulates one or more of the following information: the I-RNTI, the MAC-I, the request cause, the cell identifier, and the second index identifier” (Para 0218-0220: cell identifier, MAC-I, and RNTI, resume identifier).
Regarding claim 12, in view of claim 9, Luo discloses “wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the first node, a retrieve context failure message from the second node, wherein the retrieve context failure message carries information representing a latest security protection capability supported by the second node; and sending, by the first node, a radio resource control release message to the UE, wherein the radio resource control release message carries the information representing the latest security protection capability supported by the second node, and is used by the UE to perform security protection again on the radio resource control resume request message based on the information about the latest security protection capability supported by the second node” (Para 0141: after radio resource control (RRC) failure RRC reestablishment is done).
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is directed to a first node corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 25 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is directed to a computer program product corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 29 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Moon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2016/0269952 A1 / or “Moon” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 1, Luo discloses a second base station receiving security capability information sent by a first base station (Luo, Para 0015).
But Luo fails to specially disclose transmitting the security capability information message in a broadcast message.
However, Moon discloses “wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the first node, a broadcast message, wherein the broadcast message carries the information representing the security protection capability supported by at least one of the first node or information representing a security protection capability supported by the second node” (Moon, Para 0083: transmit message through Broadcast channel; and Para 0086: where the message is a connection re-establishment message with MAC-I, RNIT and a reason).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of transmitting the security capability information message in a broadcast message of Moon to the Data Security Processing Method and Apparatus of Luo to create a system where context fetch indicator (CFI) message can be transmitted to multiple recipients using a Broadcast CHannel (BCH) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated where “...terminal 710 may recognize that base stations within a predetermined range to which the serving base station 720 belongs support the context fetch” (Moon, Para 0083).
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 20250056642 A1) discloses :
[0447] The “context” includes at least one of: a key (for example, an encryption key, or an integrity verification key); a security algorithm (for example, an encryption algorithm, or an integrity verification algorithm), a COUNT value of the PDCP; a physical cell identifier of a PCell of the UE before the RRC connection is suspended; a UE identifier of a PCell of the UE before the RRC connection is suspended; a carrier identifier; a data transmitting direction.
Liao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20190149997 A1) discloses:
[0117] In some aspects, when the secondary RAN node, e.g. SgNB or SeNB, confirms the UE NR security capabilities and generates a new security key *S-KgNB, it sends an SgNB modification message with an indication to the first RAN node, e.g., MeNB or MgNB, over Xx or Xn interface. The indication can be to stop key refreshing procedure including stop sending SCG counter to the UE, stop sending new derivation key to the SgNB. The secondary RAN node decides on its own to perform *S-KgNB update by using SRB3 for RRC Connection Reconfiguration Request/Response messages for renewing NR-DC token and deriving new security key *S-KgNB.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431