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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 28, 2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-11. Applicant has
Amended claims 1, and 4.
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 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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 1 recites “…resets the first packet number to a predetermined initial value” and Also, claims 1 and 4 recite a similar statement “…reset a second packet number managed by the receiving station to a predetermined initial value …”. Examiner failed to locate the term “predetermined” that relates to the packet number (PN) in the applicant provided specification. The closest term in relation to the PN in the application provided specification is “packer number is allocated” to the fragments that need reconfiguration (see, Para 0080, 0077). As can be seen the claim limitation above it is not precisely defined by the applicant provided specification.
Claims 2-3, and 5-11 inherit the deficiencies of the base claims 1 and 4 respectively and therefore are rejected under 35 USC § 112 by virtue of their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance:
In response to argument (Page 7: Para 2-3 ) - Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that the applied prior art, Patil, has failed to disclose the amended claims 1 and 4 limitations which seeks retransmission packet number to be a “predetermined initial values”. To begin with, examiner failed to locate the term “predetermined” that relates to the packet number (PN) in the applicant provided specification. The closest term in relation to the PN in the application provided specification is “packer number is allocated” to the fragments that need reconfiguration (see, Para 0080, 0077). The prior art, Patil, also discloses similar concept regarding PN where a pool of packet numbers are assigned (see, Patil, Para 0090 -0091). Secondly, applicant argues that Patil fails to teach the packet number involved in retransmission of a segment is “resets the first packet number to a predetermined initial value” (see, applicant arguments: Page 7: Para 3: lines 1-2). However, applicant provided specification recites “….In addition, in a case where an instruction for reconfiguration of fragments, the retransmission control unit 3231 instructs the PN allocation unit 3214 to reset the packet number to be allocated…” (see, applicant specification para 0048). That is applicant provided specification describes allocating packet numbers for retransmission of fragments and failed to set a “predetermined” initial value. As stated above, Patil also discloses similar concept regarding PN where a pool of packet numbers are assigned (see, Patil, Para 0090 -0091). Furthermore, applicant’s argument regarding “resetting” is best described in (see, applicant specification, Paragraphs 79-85) which talks about synchronizing the sender and receiver packet number therefore the replay detection can be performed correctly. Patil discloses use a pool of packet numbers and avoids the replay attack by increasing the PN sequentially (Patil, Para 0097, and 0104). Applicant provided specification also discloses use of PN sequence to detect replay attack (see, applicant specification, Paragraphs 0045, 0088).
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 1-2, 4-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil et al. (US 2021/0160958 Al/ or “Patil” hereinafter).
[Based on 112 First] Regarding claim 1, Patil discloses “A transmitting station comprising a processor configured to” (Fig. 16A: Processor 1630 of AP 1602; and Para 0023):
“divide data, in which a sequence number is allocated, into fragments” (Fig. 8: Step 830; and Para 0081: fragmentation/MPDU is are created);
“allocate a first packet number to the fragments” (Fig. 8: Step 840; and Para 0082: assigns packet number to the MPDUs/fragments);
“encrypt the fragments on a basis of the first packet number” (Fig. 8: Step 858; and Para 0083: the MPDUs/fragments are encrypted);
“transmit the fragments encrypted as a wireless signal to a receiving station” (Fig. 8: Step 862; and Para 0084: the encrypted MPDUs/fragments are transmitted);
“and control retransmission of the data on a basis of a response from the receiving station, wherein when retransmitting the data, the processor resets the first packet number to a predetermined initial value” (Para 011; and Para 0082 and Fig. 8: Step 845, new packet number are assigned to the MPDUs/fragments; and Para 0090),
“requests the receiving station to reset a second packet number managed by the receiving station to a predetermined initial value for decryption of the fragments encrypted” (Para 0109: a receiver may flush it buffer when receiving retransmitted packer, where a flush indicator is provided to reset the receiver buffer),
“and reconfigure an unsuccessfully transmitted fragment” (Para 0107: retransmit packets with reconfiguration of Sequence Number (CN) and Packet Number (PN)).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Patil discloses “wherein: when retransmitting the data, the processor further requests the receiving station to delete the unsuccessfully transmitted fragment and subsequent fragments, and reconfigures a fragment with a sequence number including the unsuccessfully transmitted fragment, and subsequent fragments” (Para 0109: a receiver may flush it buffer when receiving retransmitted packer, where a flush indicator is provided to reset the receiver buffer).
[Based on 112 First] Regarding claim 4, Patil discloses “A receiving station comprising a processor configured to” (Fig. 16B: Processor 1635 of STA 1604; and Para 0023):
“detect success or failure of reception of fragments encrypted included in a wireless signal received from a transmitting station, a sequence number and a packet number being allocated to the fragments” (Fig. 13: Step 1354; and Para 0103: the receiving using validates the CRC for each encrypted MPDU);
“decrypt the fragments encrypted for which reception has succeeded on a basis of a first packet number allocated to the fragments encrypted for which the reception has succeeded” (Fig. 13: Step 1356; and Para 0103: decrypts the encrypted MPDUs);
“perform replay detection of the fragments decrypted, on a basis of the first packet number, and a second packet number managed corresponding to the fragments decrypted” (Fig. 13: Step 1380; and Para 0104: performs replay check based on the packet numbers);
“send out a response including a reception status of the fragments encrypted to the transmitting station depending on a detection result” (Para 0107: based on an acknowledgement retransmit determination is made; and Para 0109: the fragment is retransmitted),
“wherein the processor resets the second packet number to a predetermined initial value in response to a request from the transmitting station when retransmitting data” (Para 0109: a receiver may flush it buffer when receiving retransmitted packer, where a flush indicator is provided to reset the receiver buffer).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 4, Patil discloses “further comprising: a buffer that holds fragments for which the reception has succeeded, wherein the processor clears the buffer in response to a request from the transmitting station when retransmitting the data” (Para 0109: a receiver may flush it buffer when receiving retransmitted packer, where a flush indicator is provided to reset the receiver buffer).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 4, Patil discloses “wherein performing the replay detection includes comparing a packet number extracted from one of the fragments decrypted with the second packet number” (Para 0104: a replay attack is determined based packet number (PN)).
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 7, Patil discloses “wherein performing the replay detection includes discarding the one of the fragments decrypted if the packet number extracted from the one of the fragments decrypted is less than or equal to the second packet number” (Para 0097: a replay attack is determined if PN number is repeated or not increasing or decreasing).
Regarding claim 9, in view of claim 7, Patil discloses “wherein performing the replay detection includes discarding the one of the fragments decrypted if the packet number extracted from the one of the fragments decrypted is not a sequential number” (Para 0108: a replay attack is determined if PN number is not monotonically increasing).
Regarding claim 10, in view of claim 4, Patil discloses “wherein the processor is configured to increment the second packet number for each of the fragments decrypted that passes the replay detection” (Para 0108: a replay attack is determined if PN number is not monotonically increasing).
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 4, Patil discloses “wherein the processor is configured to perform the replay detection after performing the decryption of the fragments” (Fig. 13: Step 1356 is decryption step, and Step 1380 is a replay check based on the packet number; and Para 0103-0104).
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.
Claims 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Ming Gan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20220149991 A1 / or “Gan” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Patil disclose retransmit packets with reconfiguration of Sequence Number and Packet Number (Patil Para 0107).
But Patil fails to specially disclose encrypting the packet based on Counter-mode with CBC-MAC protocol (CCMP) method.
However, Gan discloses “wherein: the processor encrypts the fragments by a Counter-mode with CBC-MAC protocol (CCMP) method” (Gan, Para 0073: encrypting the packet based on Counter-mode with CBC-MAC protocol (CCMP) method).
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 encrypting the packet based on CCMP method of Gan to the of Patil to create a system where packets are encrypted CCMP method to secure the content and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to enhance security of the packets being transmitted by using message integrity code (Gan, Para 0073).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 4, Patil in view of Gan disclose “wherein: the processor decrypts the fragments encrypted, by a Counter-mode with CBC-MAC protocol (CCMP) method” (Gan, Para 0073) [see motivation of claim 3].
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bang et al. (U.S. Patent No.: US 11082887 B2) discloses:
[Abstract] A method for frame retransmission performed by a first wireless terminal in a wireless LAN system comprises the steps of: dividing an MSDU received from an upper layer of a first wireless terminal into multiple MPDUs; transmitting the multiple divided MPDUs to a second wireless terminal, wherein each of the multiple divided MPDUs includes division information and transmission sequence information; if an ACK frame for notifying of successful reception of the multiple divided MPDUs is not received until a preset time elapses, transmitting, to the second wireless terminal, a BAR frame for determining at least one MPDU to be retransmitted by the first wireless terminal among the multiple divided MPDUs; receiving a BA frame from the second wireless terminal in response to the BAR frame, wherein the BA frame includes frame information indicating a last MPDU successfully received by the second wireless terminal among the multiple divided MPDUs; and performing a retransmission procedure on the basis of the frame information.
Lambert et al. (U.S. Patent No.: US 9264404 B1) discloses encrypting data using CCMP (Col 1: lines 57-62).
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
/SARAH SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights