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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0048]-[0050] appear to introduce and recite a set of options. However, there is no clear ending to the list of options (e.g. no “and” or “or”). The examiner suggests amending the specification by merging para. [0049]-[0050] into para. [0048] with clear language showing the end of the list. Paragraphs [0051]-[0053], [0070]-[0074], [0076]-[0078], [0199]-[0202] contain a similar issue to para. [0048]-[0050], so similar corrections to each set of paragraphs are suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0149]-[0150] appear to introduce a set of options, but then appears to only recite a single option. The examiner suggests amending the specification by merging para. [0150] into para. [0149] with clear language showing the end of the list. Paragraphs [0174]-[0175], [0184]-[0185] contain a similar issue to para. [0149]-[0150], so similar corrections to each set of paragraphs are suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “obtaining auxiliary information sent by UE”, but the abbreviation “UE” should be expanded (since it is part of a distinct claim set from independent claim 1). The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “obtaining auxiliary information sent by [[UE]]user equipment (UE)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 13, 14, 17, 20, 33, 38 and 39 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.
As per claim 8, the claim recites a set of alternatives via the “or” in line 10. However, the exact breadth of the alternative embodiments is unclear to the examiner. For example, is unclear which of the “obtaining” (starting at line 4), “executing” (starting at line 5), and “sending” (starting at line 9) steps make up the first alternative embodiment, and which of the “determining” (starting at line 11) and “sending” (starting at line 16), For purposes of expedited prosecution, the examiner interprets the “sending” (starting at line 9) step as the first alternative embodiment, and “determining” (starting at line 11) and “sending” (starting at line 16) steps as the second alternative embodiment.
Claim 33 recites similar subject matter to claim 8 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning to claim 8 above.
Claims 13, 14, 17, 20, 38 and 39 depend on claims 8 and 33, and therefore are rejected based on their incorporation of rejected subject matter
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 13, 14, 17, 20, 26, 33, 38, 39 and 55-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Purkayastha, et al (Pub. No. US 2021/0185521 A1, hereinafter referred to as Purkayastha).
Claim 1 is an independent claim and Purkayastha discloses a system information verification method, applied to user equipment (UE) (first UE 602, para. [0069]) and comprising:
sending auxiliary information to a network-side device (the first UE 602 may transmit a direct communication request 610 to the second UE 604, para. [0069], network communications between UEs (showing that the second UE is a network-side device as claimed), para. [0003]);
wherein the auxiliary information comprises at least one of:
a verification manner supported by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
information of a verification algorithm supported by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
an identifier of system information expected to be verified by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
an identifier of system information received by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
an identifier of system information of interest of the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner); or
first indication information indicating that the UE expects system information verification (establishing a unicast link…the communication request includes first UE information (first indication information as claimed) to be verified by the second UE and results in receiving information from second UE including second UE identifier, para. [0069], [0070]); and
triggering, based on information sent by the network-side device (the second UE 604 may transmit a direct communication accept 630 to the first UE 602, para. [0070]), correctness verification for system information (The first UE 602 may receive the direct communication accept 630 and, as illustrated at 632, may verify the identity of the second UE 604 based on the security token and the identifier included in the direct communication accept 630, para. [0070).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses further comprising:
obtaining configuration information sent by the network-side device (establishing security context (configuration information as claimed) for unicast link between first and second UE, para. [0055], FIG. 4 – 410; establishing security context includes transmitting messages between first and second UE, para. [0056]); wherein the configuration information comprises at least one of:
a verification manner supported by the network-side device (security context may be a PC5 signaling protocol security context, para. [0055]);
an area identifier of system information supporting verification (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
a first request message for requesting the UE to report whether the UE is capable of supporting system information verification, and/or for requesting the UE to report the information of the verification algorithm supported by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
a second request message for requesting the UE to report the identifier of the system information expected to be verified by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
a third request message for requesting the UE to report the identifier of the system information received by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner); or
a fourth request message for requesting the UE to report the identifier of the system information of interest of the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner).
As per claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses wherein the sending auxiliary information to a network-side device comprises: sending, based on the configuration information, the auxiliary information to the network-side device (information included in direct communication accept 630 includes security token based on security context, para. [0070]).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses wherein the verification manner comprises at least one of: executing, by the UE, the correctness verification for system information; or executing, by the network-side device, the correctness verification for system information (both UEs perform verification using security token information, para. [0069]-[0070]).
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses wherein the information of the verification algorithm supported by the UE comprises at least one of: an algorithm type identifier of the verification algorithm supported by the UE; or an algorithm identifier of the verification algorithm supported by the UE (“the information of the verification algorithm supported by the UE” is an optional limitation of claim 1 not being considered by the examiner – therefore, this claim is rendered optional and is not being considered since it is dependent on an optional limitation).
As per claim 6, claim 2 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses wherein the area identifier of the system information supporting verification comprises at least one of: a cell identifier of the system information supporting verification; a cell type identifier of the system information supporting verification; a cell group type identifier of the system information supporting verification; a tracking area identifier of the system information supporting verification; or an access network notification area identifier of the system information supporting verification (“the area identifier” is an optional limitation of claim 1 not being considered by the examiner – therefore, this claim is rendered optional and is not being considered since it is dependent on an optional limitation).
As per claim 7, claim 2 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses wherein the obtaining configuration information sent by the network-side device is realized by at least one of: obtaining the configuration information sent by the network-side device through a broadcast message; or obtaining the configuration information sent by the network-side device through a dedicated configuration message (establishing security context for unicast link using signaling protocol between first and second UE, para. [0055], FIG. 4 - 410).
As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses wherein the triggering, based on information sent by the network-side device, correctness verification for system information comprises:
obtaining information of a first verification algorithm (verification is based on security token, para. [0069], [0070]);
executing calculation on to-be-verified system information with the first verification algorithm to obtain a second value (verify the identify of the UEs based on security tokens, para. [0069], [0070]; identify is either verified or unverified, para. [0070]-[0073]);
wherein the to-be-verified system information comprises at least one of: the system information expected to be verified by the UE, the system information received by the UE, or the system information of interest of the UE (UE identity of second UE is verified or ununverified by the first UE, para. [0070]-[0073]);
sending the second value to the network-side device to obtain verification result information sent by the network-side device (failed verificiation results in attempt to reestablish a unicast link with the second UE via a direct communication request for the second UE to verify the identify of the first UE, para. [0073]); or,
determining, based on second indication information received from the network- side device, whether a first value received from the network-side device matches the second value (part of optional embodiment not being considered by the examiner); when the first value does not match the second value, determining a verification result as verification failure (part of optional embodiment not being considered by the examiner); and
sending the verification result to the network-side device (part of optional embodiment not being considered by the examiner);
wherein the second indication information is to instruct the UE to execute the correctness verification for system information (part of optional embodiment not being considered by the examiner);
wherein the verification result information comprises at least one of:
a verification result of executing the correctness verification for system information (see para. [0070]-[0073]); wherein the verification result indicates verification success or verification failure (see para. [0070]-[0073]);
an area identifier of system information which undergoes the correctness verification (this option is not being considered by the examiner);
third indication information indicating whether the system information is subjected to a security problem (this option is not being considered by the examiner); or
fourth indication information comprising a type indication of the security problem subjected by the system information (this option is not being considered by the examiner); wherein the type indication comprises an indication indicating system information correctness verification failure and/or an indication indicating system information tampered (this option is not being considered by the examiner).
As per claim 13, claim 8 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses further comprising at least one of:
in response to that the verification result indicates the verification failure, obtaining system information re-sent by the network-side device (second UE resends identifier and security token in attempt to reestablish a unicast link, para. [0073]);
determining, based on the verification result, whether the system information is subjected to a security problem (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner); or
determining, based on a number of times of the UE receiving system information, whether the system information is subjected to a security problem (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner).
As per claim 14, claim 13 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses wherein the determining, based on the verification result, whether the system information is subjected to a security problem comprises: determining a number of verification failures for the system information; and in response to that the number of verification failures exceeds a first threshold, determining that the system information is subjected to a security problem; wherein the number of verification failures indicates a number of verification failures for same system information (“the determining based on the verification result, whether the system information is subjected to a security problem” is an optional limitation of claim 13 not being considered by the examiner – therefore, this claim rendered optional and thus is not being considered since it is dependent on an optional limitation).
As per claim 17, claim 13 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses wherein the determining, based on a number of times of the UE receiving system information, whether the system information is subjected to a security problem comprises: determining a number of times of receiving system information, and in response to that the number of times of receiving system information exceeds a second threshold, determining that the system information is subjected to a security problem; wherein the number of times of receiving system information indicates a number of times of receiving same system information (“the determining, based on a number of times of the UE receiving system information, whether the system information is subjected to a security problem” is an optional limitation of claim 13 not being considered by the examiner – therefore, this claim rendered optional and thus is not being considered since it is dependent on an optional limitation).
As per claim 20, claim 8 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses further comprising at least one of:
in response to determining that the system information is subjected to a security problem, triggering a connection release to execute cell selection or re-selection;
in response to determining that the system information is subjected to a security problem, triggering a connection reconstruction to execute the cell selection or re- selection; or
in response to determining that the system information is subjected to a security problem (failed verification, para. [0073]), reporting fifth indication information to the network-side device; wherein the fifth indication information is to indicate a situation of the system information being subjected to a security problem (attempt to reestablish a unicast link with a direct communication request, para. [0073]).
Claim 26 is an independent claim and Purkayastha discloses a system information verification method, applied to a network-side device (second UE 604, para. [0069], network communications between UEs (shows second UE is a network device as claimed), para. [0003]) and comprising:
obtaining auxiliary information sent by UE (the first UE 602 may transmit a direct communication request 610 to the second UE 604, para. [0069]);
wherein the auxiliary information comprises at least one of:
a verification manner supported by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
information of a verification algorithm supported by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
an identifier of system information expected to be verified by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
an identifier of system information received by the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner);
an identifier of system information of interest of the UE (optional limitation not being considered by the examiner); or
first indication information indicating that the UE expects system information verification (establishing a unicast link…the communication request includes first UE information (first indication information as claimed) to be verified by the second UE and results in receiving information from second UE including second UE identifier, para. [0069], [0070]); and
triggering, based on the auxiliary information (the second UE 604 may transmit a direct communication accept 630 to the first UE 602, para. [0070]), correctness verification for system information (The first UE 602 may receive the direct communication accept 630 and, as illustrated at 632, may verify the identity of the second UE 604 based on the security token and the identifier included in the direct communication accept 630, para. [0070).
As per claim 33, claim 26 is incorporated. Claim 33 corresponds to claim 8 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 38, claim 33 is incorporated. Claim 38 corresponds to claim 13 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning.
As per claim 39, claim 38 is incorporated and Purkayastha further discloses wherein,
the determining, based on the verification result, whether the system information is subjected to a security problem comprises (“the determining, based on the verification result, whether the system information is subjected to a security problem” is an optional limitation of claim 13 not being considered by the examiner – therefore, this claim rendered optional and thus is not being considered since it is dependent on an optional limitation):
determining a number of verification failures for the system information (part of optional limitation above which is not being considered by the examiner); and
in response to that the number of verification failures exceeds a first threshold, determining that the system information is subjected to a security problem; wherein the number of verification failures indicates a number of verification failures for same system information (part of optional limitation above which is not being considered by the examiner);
or,
the determining, based on a number of times of the network-side device sending system information, whether the system information is subjected to a security problem comprises (“the determining, based on a number of times of the network-side device sending system information, whether the system information is subjected to a security problem” is an optional limitation of claim 13 not being considered by the examiner – therefore, this claim rendered optional and thus is not being considered since it is dependent on an optional limitation):
determining a number of times of sending system information (part of optional limitation above which is not being considered by the examiner); and
in response to that the number of times of sending system information exceeds a second threshold, determining that the system information is subjected to a security problem; wherein the number of times of sending system information indicates a number of times of receiving same system information (part of optional limitation above which is not being considered by the examiner).
Claim 55 is an independent claim corresponding to independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning. Purkayastha further discloses a processor and an interface circuit; wherein the interface circuit is configured to receive code instructions and transmit the code instructions to the processor; and the processor is configured to execute the code instructions to execute the method (see para. [0028]-[0029]).
Claim 56 is an independent claim corresponding to independent claim 26 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning. Purkayastha further discloses a processor and an interface circuit; wherein the interface circuit is configured to receive code instructions and transmit the code instructions to the processor; and the processor is configured to execute the code instructions to execute the method (see para. [0028]-[0029]).
Claim 57 is an independent claim corresponding to independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning. Purkayastha further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, configured to store instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed, the method (see para. [0029], [0110]).
Claim 58 is an independent claim corresponding to independent claim 26 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning. Purkayastha further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, configured to store instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed, the method (see para. [0029], [0110]).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner notes that the applicant’s claims contain many optional sets of limitations, rendering many of the claimed limitations and further dependent claims as also optional. The examiner urges the applicant to rewrite the claims to more clearly establish pertinent claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2007/0287440 A1 – generally teaches a UE receiving system information from a network device to verifying system information at the UE.
US Patent No. 606,4741 A – generally teaches a user computer and network computer exchanging communications and verifying network certificates by the user computer.
US Patent No. 7,839,891 B1 – generally teaches verifying configuration information used by a system is correct information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 530PM.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/JONATHAN A BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443