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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
1. This is in response to application filed on 3/20/2024 in which claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 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 § 112
4. 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 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 27 recites the limitation "...the reported configuration...", on line 15, however, there is insufficient prior antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims.
For complete examination purposes, the Examiner will broadly address the claims in light of the overall concept of Applicant’s invention. Appropriate corrections are therefore required.
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.
Claims 1-18, 20-25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Segev et al., (US 2020/0021979), (hereinafter, Segev) in view of Bergquist et al., (US 2021/0235271), (hereinafter, Bergquist).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Segev discloses a device/method configured for supporting securitization of positioning state information (PSI) by a user equipment (UE) in a cellular network
(= measurement report and a sounding signal may be used in various ranging protocols; and either or both the measurement report and a sounding report may be protected, see [0073]; and exchanging of encryption information for protecting measurement phase, see [0077]; and in a peer-to-peer (P2P) network environment, see [0102]), comprising:
at least one transceiver; at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one transceiver and the at least one memory (= machine 600/ 1400 may include CPU/processor, antennas and memory, see [0102 and 0109]; measurement phase may obtain a round trip time (RTT) between the initiator 602 and the responder 604, see [0078]; and the initiator 602 and responder 604 may be a station (STA), see [0077 and 0102]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
obtain one or more PSI to be reported in one or more PSI reports
(= measurement phase may obtain a round trip time (RTT), see [0078]; and first sounding signal 610 may leave at t_1 and come back at t_4…the initiator 602 obtains the RTT, see [0079 and 0078]; and peer-to-peer (P2P) network environment, see [0102]);
generate the one or more PSI reports from the one or more PSI based on a reporting configuration (= measurement phase may obtain a round trip time (RTT), see [0078]; there may be a negotiation phase before measurement phase; encryption information such as random seed for protecting the measurement phase may be exchanged in the negotiation phase, see [0077 and 0073]; and measurement report may be sent by the initiator and/or the transponder, see [0084-86]; whereby the exchange of the seed via the encryption protocol for measurement report is being associated with the “reporting configuration”)
wherein to generate the one or more PSI reports the at least one processor is configured to, for each PSI of the one or more PSI, identify whether the device is to encrypt the PSI using one or more security keys at the device based on the reporting configuration (= there may be a negotiation phase before measurement phase; encryption information such as random seed for protecting the measurement phase may be exchanged in the negotiation phase, see [0077]; and protecting RTT and scrambling and number adding embodiments may be replaced by other types of encryption, see [0090 and 0094]); and
report the one or more PSI reports to a wireless device (= if the responder needs the RTT, the initiator may send t_1 and the channel estimates of the second sounding frame to the responder so that the responder can estimate t_4 and identify the RTT, see [0088 and 0085] and the initiator 602 and responder 604 may be a station (STA), see [0077 and 0102]).
Segev explicitly fails to disclose the claim limitations of:
“identify a security priority associated with each PSI”.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art discloses the claimed limitations of:
“identify a security (= integrity protection) priority associated with each PSI”
(= data packets or messages which are intended for transmission to another node of the network are first inspected to determine a characteristic of the data packet or message; and based on the determined characteristic, integrity protection for the data packet or message is selectively activated for onward transmission to the node, see [0051]; and data packets or messages which contain user data which is more sensitive are subjected to integrity protection, see [0052-53]; i.e., sensitive data/messages are subjected to integrity protection; and insensitive data/message are not subjected to integrity protection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify that the device is able to encrypt at most a first portion of the one or more PSI for the one or more PSI reports using the one or more security keys, wherein: for at least one PSI of the one or more PSI, to generate the one or more PSI reports based on the reporting configuration, the at least one processor is configured to: drop the PSI from being included in the one or more PSI reports; or include the PSI as partially encrypted or unencrypted in the one or more PSI reports.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify that the device is able to encrypt at most a first portion of the one or more PSI for the one or more PSI reports using the one or more security keys, wherein: for at least one PSI of the one or more PSI, to generate the one or more PSI reports based on the reporting configuration, the at least one processor is configured to: drop the PSI from being included in the one or more PSI reports; or include the PSI as partially encrypted or unencrypted in the one or more PSI reports (see, [0023-27 and 0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned in claim 2, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein to drop the PSI from being included in the one or more PSI reports, the at least one processor is configured to drop the PSI from being included in the one or more PSI reports based on the security priority associated with the PSI.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein to drop the PSI from being included in the one or more PSI reports, the at least one processor is configured to drop the PSI from being included in the one or more PSI reports based on the security priority associated with the PSI (see, [0023-27 and 0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned in claim 2, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein to include the PSI as partially encrypted or unencrypted in the one or more PSI reports, the at least one processor is configured to include the PSI as partially encrypted or unencrypted in the one or more PSI reports based on the security priority associated with the PSI.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein to include the PSI as partially encrypted or unencrypted in the one or more PSI reports, the at least one processor is configured to include the PSI as partially encrypted or unencrypted in the one or more PSI reports based on the security priority associated with the PSI (see, [0023-27 and 0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned in claim 2, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein to generate the one or more PSI reports based on the reporting configuration, the at least one processor is configured to prioritize the one or more PSI in the one or more PSI reports from highest security priority to lowest security priority.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein to generate the one or more PSI reports based on the reporting configuration, the at least one processor is configured to prioritize the one or more PSI in the one or more PSI reports from highest security priority to lowest security priority (see, [0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned in claim 5, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein to generate the one or more PSI reports based on the reporting configuration, the at least one processor is configured to encrypt only a portion of PSI in a PSI report based on the prioritization of the one or more PSI.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein to generate the one or more PSI reports based on the reporting configuration, the at least one processor is configured to encrypt only a portion of PSI in a PSI report based on the prioritization of the one or more PSI (see, [0025; 0027 and 0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned in claim 6, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein to prioritize the one or more PSI, the at least one processor is configured to order the one or more PSI from highest security priority to lowest security priority, wherein the encrypted portion of PSI in the PSI report precedes a remainder of the PSI report.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein to prioritize the one or more PSI, the at least one processor is configured to order the one or more PSI from highest security priority to lowest security priority, wherein the encrypted portion of PSI in the PSI report precedes a remainder of the PSI report (see, [0025; 0027 and 0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned in claim 2, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein to generate the one or more PSI reports based on the reporting configuration, the at least one processor is configured to prioritize the one or more PSI reports based on the one or more security priorities of the one or more PSI. However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein to generate the one or more PSI reports based on the reporting configuration, the at least one processor is configured to prioritize the one or more PSI reports based on the one or more security priorities of the one or more PSI (see, [0025; 0027 and 0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned in claim 8, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein to generate the one or more PSI reports based on the reporting configuration, the at least one processor is configured to encrypt only a first subset of PSI reports of the one or more PSI reports based on the prioritization of the one or more PSI reports.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein to generate the one or more PSI reports based on the reporting configuration, the at least one processor is configured to encrypt only a first subset of PSI reports of the one or more PSI reports based on the prioritization of the one or more PSI reports (see, [0025; 0027 and 0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned in claim 9, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein to prioritize the one or more PSI reports, the at least one processor is configured to order the one or more PSI reports based on the prioritization of the one or more PSI reports, wherein the encrypted first subset of PSI reports precedes a remainder of PSI reports of the one or more ordered PSI reports.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein to prioritize the one or more PSI reports, the at least one processor is configured to order the one or more PSI reports based on the prioritization of the one or more PSI reports, wherein the encrypted first subset of PSI reports precedes a remainder of PSI reports of the one or more ordered PSI reports (see, [0025; 0027 and 0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned in claim 2, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the reporting configuration includes a list of PSI types indicating a security priority associated with each of the PSI types in the list.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the reporting configuration includes a list of PSI types indicating a security priority associated with each of the PSI types in the list (see, [0025; 0027 and 0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned in claim 11, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive security priorities associated with PSI types in the list of PSI types from another wireless device of the cellular network.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive security priorities associated with PSI types in the list of PSI types from another wireless device of the cellular network (see, [0025; 0027 and 0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned in claim 12, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the reporting configuration includes a ranking of PSI types in the list of PSI types from highest security priority to lowest security priority.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the reporting configuration includes a ranking of PSI types in the list of PSI types from highest security priority to lowest security priority (see, [0025; 0027 and 0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned in claim 13, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive the ranking of PSI types from another wireless device of the cellular network.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive the ranking of PSI types from another wireless device of the cellular network (see, [0025; 0027 and 0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned in claim 13, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine the ranking of PSI types; and report the ranking of PSI types together with the one or more PSI reports.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine the ranking of PSI types; and report the ranking of PSI types together with the one or more PSI reports (see, [0025; 0027 and 0052-53]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned in claim 11, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a security priority of a PSI type from the list of PSI types based on a security quality of service (QoS).
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a security priority of a PSI type from the list of PSI types based on a security quality of service (QoS) (see, [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned in claim 16, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to report the configured security priority to another wireless device of the cellular network.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to report the configured security priority to another wireless device of the cellular network (see, [0069-70]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned in claim 17, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive a request to configure the security priority, wherein to report the security priority, the at least one processor is configured to report the configured security priority from the device in a mobile originated location request (MO-LR).
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive a request to configure the security priority, wherein to report the security priority, the at least one processor is configured to report the configured security priority from the device in a mobile originated location request (MO-LR) (see, [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned in claim 1, Segev further discloses the device wherein the one or more PSI reports are associated with user equipment (UE)-to-UE positioning using a sidelink (see, [0102]).
Regarding claim 21, as mentioned in claim 20, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the security priority is configured based on a security quality of server (QoS) from a second UE during a sidelink positioning setup phase for UE-to-UE positioning using the sidelink.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the security priority is configured based on a security quality of server (QoS) from a second UE during a sidelink positioning setup phase for UE-to-UE positioning using the sidelink (see, [0070, 0076 and 0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 22, as mentioned in claim 21, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein: the security priority is configured by a base station; and the security priority is provided by the base station to one or more of the device or the second UE for UE-to-UE positioning using the sidelink.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein: the security priority is configured by a base station; and the security priority is provided by the base station to one or more of the device or the second UE for UE-to-UE positioning using the sidelink (see, [0070, 0076 and 0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 23, as mentioned in claim 1, Segev explicitly fails to disclose the device wherein the security priority associated with each PSI is based on a PSI type of the PSI.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art, equivalently disclose the device wherein the security priority associated with each PSI is based on a PSI type of the PSI (see, [0072 and 0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 24, as mentioned in claim 23, Segev further discloses the device wherein the PSI type is one of:
a reference signal time difference (RSTD) vector and RSTD time-stamp;
a user equipment (UE) receive-transmit (Rx-Tx) vector and Rx-Tx time-stamp (see, [0078]);
a reference signal received power (RSRP) vector and RSRP time-stamp;
a quality metric vector and quality metric time-stamp;
a velocity vector and velocity time-stamp;
a time of arrival (TOA) vector and TOA time-stamp;
a multipath vector and multipath time-stamp;
a line of sight (LOS) / non-line of sight (NLOS) (LOS/NLOS) vector and LOS/NLOS time-stamp;
or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) vector and SINR time-stamp.
Regarding claim 25, as mentioned in claim 1, Segev further discloses the device wherein to identify whether the device is to encrypt a PSI using one or more security keys at the device, the at least one processor is configured to identify whether the device is to encrypt a PSI using one or more security keys at the device based on a strength of the one or more security keys at the device (see, [0091 and 0094]).
Regarding claims 27 and 30, Segev discloses a device/method configured for supporting securitization of positioning (= ranging) state information (PSI) in a cellular network (= measurement report and a sounding signal may be used in various ranging protocols; and either or both the measurement report and a sounding report may be protected, see [0073]; and exchanging of encryption information for protecting measurement phase, see [0077]; and in peer-to-peer (P2P) network environment, see [0102]), comprising:
at least one transceiver; at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one transceiver and the at least one memory (machine 600/ 1400 may include CPU/processor, antennas and memory, see [0102 and 0109]; measurement phase may obtain a round trip time (RTT) between the initiator 602 and the responder 604, see [0078]; and the initiator 602 and responder 604 may be a station (STA), see [0077 and 0102]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
transmit, for a user equipment (UE), at least one reference signal (= sounding) associated with the one or more PSI (= directions of the first and second sounding may be reversed; and measurement phase may obtain a round trip time (RTT), see [0077-78]), and one or more security keys (= encryption information such as a random seed for protecting the measurement phase may be exchanged, see [0077 or 0073]); and
receive the one or more PSI reports from the UE, wherein the one or more PSI reports are based on the at least one reference signal associated with the one or more PSI (= measurement phase may obtain a round trip time (RTT), see [0078]; and first sounding signal 610 may leave at t_1 and come back at t_4…the initiator 602 obtains the RTT, see [0079, 0078 and 0073]);
and wherein the one or more PSI reports are encrypted according to the one or more security keys by the UE based on the reporting configuration (= measurement report and sounding signal may be used in various ranging protocol; and both may be protected, using seed in an encryption protocol, see [0073]; whereby the exchange of the seed via the encryption protocol for measurement report is being associated with the “reporting configuration”).
Segev explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“transmit, for a user equipment (UE), at least one security priority associated with one or more PSI to be reported in one or more PSI reports; and receive the one or more PSI reports from the UE, wherein the one or more PSI reports are based on the at least one security priority”.
However, Bergquist which is an analogous art discloses that:
(“a data packets or messages which are intended for transmission to another node of the network are first inspected to determine a characteristic of the data packet or message; and based on the determined characteristic, integrity protection for the data packet or message is selectively activated for onward transmission to the node, see [0051]; and data packets or messages which contain user data which is more sensitive are subjected to integrity protection”, see [0052-53]; i.e., sensitive data/messages are subjected to integrity protection; and insensitive data/message are not subjected to integrity protection). Therefore, such disclosure teaches the “security priority associated with a reported” information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Bergquist with Segev for the benefit of achieving a communication system that activates integrity protection for onward transmission of data packet or message based on a determined sensitive characteristic of the data packet or message.
Regarding claim 28, as mentioned in claim 27, Segev further discloses the device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit at least one of the one or more PSI reports from the UE to at least one of a location server or a core network component (see, [0101]).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 19 and 26 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
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Leitch (US 2006/0282668) teaches data encryption method and apparatus.
b. Gunnarsson et al., (US 2021/0337508) teaches a radio network node, a wireless device and method therein for transmission and reception of position system information.
c. Kim et al., (US 2021/0120405) teaches secure fine timing measurements.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat: 6am-10pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.