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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims and argued those amendments. Examiner agrees that the previous rejection was overcome. However, new rejections are presented below. Please see the rejections that follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21, 23-26 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.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites ‘…wherein to produce the commitment scheme the processor is configured to apply the one-way function…’ It is unclear if this should be to produce the commitment sequence since the product of the scheme is the sequence. Therefore, the claim is unclear. Please clarify.
Regarding claims 23-26, claim 23 recites ‘…receive, from the network entity, a commitment sequence corresponding to the reference signal, a public encryption key of the network entity, and to a commitment scheme…’ That is, it is unclear if the commitment sequence is corresponding to the reference signal, to a public encryption key of the network entity, and to a commitment scheme…’ or if the ‘…UE receives a commitment sequence which corresponds to the reference signal, the UE receives a public encryption key of the network entity, and the UE receives a commitment scheme…’ Claims 24-26 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 23 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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, 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.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2020/0322805) and further in view of Sridhara (2020/0044844).
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses a network entity comprising:
a transceiver;
a memory; and
a processor, communicatively coupled to the memory and the transceiver, configured to: (See Wang fig. 4, 48-49; base station (e.g. network entity) with transceivers and a processor and memory)
produce a commitment sequence by applying a commitment scheme to a first reference signal; (See Wang para. 80, fig. 6; base station uses security keys to generate a digital signature (e.g. commitment sequence); para. 41, 79-80; digital signatures as an authentication technique, including ECDSA, an asymmetric cryptographic algorithm (e.g. commitment schemes) para. 77, 81; security keys used to encrypt the spreading code (e.g. first reference signal in that the PRS may include the spreading code which enables the UE to determine distance from base station);
transmit, via the transceiver a transmission signal including the first reference signal. (See Wang para. 76, 77, fig. 6; encrypted PRS, including spreading code, is transmitted)
Wang does not explicitly disclose applying a commitment scheme to private keys of the network entity and transmit the commitment sequence before subsequent data transmissions. However, Sridhara does disclose applying a commitment scheme to private keys of the network entity and (See Sridhara para. 92; input data uses private key to process a hash by executing a DSA (e.g. commitment scheme) using private keys of transmitting device) transmit the commitment sequence before subsequent data transmissions. (See Sridhara fig. 7, block 706, 708, para. 87; transmit authentication data (e.g. commitment sequence) to the device before transmitting the data traffic) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Wang to include the teaching of applying a commitment scheme to private keys of the network entity and transmit the commitment sequence before subsequent data transmissions of Sridhara with the motivation being to enable the device to possess an authentication value before receiving encrypted data, thereby improving authentication of the subsequently received data and resist spoofing and further to allow for reuse of the authentication information for future transmissions beyond just this one which may reduce control traffic.
Regarding claim 21, Wang in view of Sridhara discloses the network entity of claim 19, wherein the commitment scheme comprises a one-way function, and wherein to produce the commitment scheme the processor is configured to apply the one-way function to the data and to the private key of the transmitting entity. (See Sridhara para. 92; DSA is executed using private key of transmitting device and generates a one-way hash; see also 112 issue) The motivation being to enable the device to possess an authentication value before receiving encrypted data, thereby improving authentication of the subsequently received data and resist spoofing and further to allow for reuse of the authentication information for future transmissions beyond just this one which may reduce control traffic.
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, 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.
Claims 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2020/0322805) and further in view of Ma (10,664,835) and further in view of Bi (2015/0236851).
Regarding claim 23, Wang discloses a user equipment comprising:
a transceiver;
a memory; and
a processor, communicatively coupled to the memory and the transceiver, configured to: (See Wang fig. 4, para. 44, 45; UE with transceiver and processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
receive a reference signal from a network entity; (See Wang fig. 6; UE receives a PRS, positioning reference signal, (e.g. a reference signal) from a base station (e.g. network entity))
receive a key; (See Wang fig. 6; UE receives a key before the reference signal is sent)
apply a function to the reference signal to produce a candidate sequence, the function corresponding to an encryption schemes including keys; and (See Wang fig. 6, para. 78; UE decrypts the PRS using security key 322)
determine whether the candidate sequence has an acceptable relationship. (See Wang fig. 6, para. 79; UE performs an authentication procedure to see if the base station is authenticated (e.g. acceptable relationship))
Wang does not explicitly disclose receiving a commitment sequence produced by applying a commitment scheme. However, Ma does disclose receiving a commitment sequence produced by applying a commitment scheme. (See Ma col. 4, lines 55-60; use a Pedersen commitment scheme to create a commitment (e.g. commitment sequence); col. 6, lines 17-33; sending the commitment sequence to the other node and verifying it) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Wang to include the teaching of receiving a commitment sequence produced by applying a commitment scheme of Ma with the motivation being to allow for unconditional hiding meaning that even with infinite computing power, an adversary cannot determine the committed value (vs encryption which with enough computing power can be determined) and further if the binding property of a Pedersen commitment is compromised, the privacy of the original message remains intact and further and homomorphic nature which allows for confidential transactions and efficiency by allowing for aggregation of multiple commitments into a single value thus reducing overhead and further native zero-knowledge proof compatibility and further non-interactive and no trusted setup and further efficient verification (Pedersen commitments are computationally light).
Wang in view of Ma does not explicitly disclose UE receiving a public encryption key from the network. However, Bi does disclose UE receiving a public encryption key from the network. (See Bi para. 234, fig. 2, 3; UE receives public key from network) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Wang in view of Ma to include the teaching of wherein the processor is further configured UE receiving a public encryption key from the network of Bi with the motivation being to allow for updated keys to allow for continued authentication services and further to avoid use of obsolete trust information and further to enable key-expiration management (obtaining new keys before old keys expire) and further to replace compromised keys.
Regarding claim 24, Wang in view of Ma in view of Bi discloses the user equipment of claim 23, wherein the processor is further configured to disregard the reference signal, or a measurement corresponding thereto, in response to determining that the candidate sequence has an unacceptable relationship (See Wang para. 79; UE attempts to authenticate; para. 71; if authentication fails, then not added to list of trusted base stations; para. 36; if not authenticated, then indication of spoofing attack; para. 18; UE uses authenticated base stations for location (e.g. disregard other signals))
Wang does not explicitly disclose receiving a commitment sequence produced by applying a commitment scheme. However, Ma does disclose receiving a commitment sequence produced by applying a commitment scheme. (See Ma col. 4, lines 55-60; use a Pedersen commitment scheme to create a commitment (e.g. commitment sequence); col. 6, lines 17-33; sending the commitment sequence to the other node and verifying it) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Wang to include the teaching of receiving a commitment sequence produced by applying a commitment scheme of Ma with the motivation being to allow for unconditional hiding meaning that even with infinite computing power, an adversary cannot determine the committed value (vs encryption which with enough computing power can be determined) and further if the binding property of a Pedersen commitment is compromised, the privacy of the original message remains intact and further and homomorphic nature which allows for confidential transactions and efficiency by allowing for aggregation of multiple commitments into a single value thus reducing overhead and further native zero-knowledge proof compatibility and further non-interactive and no trusted setup and further efficient verification (Pedersen commitments are computationally light).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2020/0322805) and further in view of Ma (10,664,835) and further in view of Bi (2015/0236851) and further in view of Piqueras Jover (2017/0126411).
Regarding claim 25, Wang in view of Ma in view of Bi discloses the user equipment of claim 23. Wang in view of Ma does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to apply the function to a public encryption key of the network entity. However, Piqueras Jover does disclose wherein the processor is further configured to apply the function to a public encryption key of the network entity. (See Piqueras Jover para. 25, fig. 7; UE uses public encryption key of the network device to determine legitimacy of message) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Wang in view of Ma to include the teaching of wherein the processor is further configured to apply the function to a public encryption key of the network entity of Piqueras Jover with the motivation being to further verify the source of data to prevent spoofing and further to ensure security.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
Claim 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 20, 22 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
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 STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights