CTNF 18/729,651 CTNF 101680 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GR20220100264 , filed on 03/28/2022 . 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings 06-37 AIA The drawings were received on 07/17/2024 . These drawings are acceptable . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations are use as generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is precede by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “means for receiving” in claim 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24; “means for communicating” in claim 17, 18, 20; “means for using” in claim 17, 18, 20 and 24; “means for producing” in claim 24. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions is described in paragraph [0029] of the specification, “In general, such UEs may be any wireless communication device (e.g., a mobile phone, router, tablet computer, laptop computer, consumer asset tracking device, Intemet of Things (loT) device, etc.) used by a user to communicate over a wireless communications network. A UE may be mobile or may (e.g., at certain times) be stationary, and may communicate with a Radio Access Network (RAN). As used herein, the term "UE" may be referred to interchangeably as an "access terminal" or "AT," a "client device," a "wireless device," a "subscriber device," a "subscriber terminal," a "subscriber station," a "user terminal" or UT. a "mobile terminal," a "mobile station," a "mobile device," or variations thereof.”; and Fig. 2 and [0059], wherein the “means for communicating” in claim 17, 18, 20 is interpreted as transceiver 240; “means for using” in claim 17, 18, 20 and 24 is interpreted as processor 210; “means for producing” in claim 24 is interpreted as processor 210. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations (e.g., reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xu et al. (Hereinafter “Xu”, US 10447725), in view of Sierra et al. (Hereinafter “Sierra”, US 20200336303). Regarding claim 1, 9, 17, and 25: Xu discloses: A method, a user equipment and a non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium comprising processor-readable instructions to cause a processor of a first user equipment to: (i.e., Each of the wireless devices 102, 104 may include wireless communication circuitry configured to facilitate the performance of wireless communication, which may include various digital and/or analog radio frequency (RF) components, a processor that is configured to execute program instructions stored in memory, a programmable hardware element such as a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), and/or any of various other components. As described in paragraph (34)) . receive, from a first entity, encryption input information; (i.e., In 402, a first wireless device may receive one or more ranging packets from a second wireless device. As described in paragraph (52)) . communicate, with a second entity that is a second UE, to establish a ranging session with the second UE; (i.e., As one possibility, the first wireless device 102 and the second wireless device 104 may perform secure ranging using wireless local area networking (WLAN) communication technology (e.g., IEEE 802.11/Wi-Fi based communication) and/or techniques based on WLAN wireless communication. As described in paragraph (32)) . Xu discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above. But does not expressly disclose features of these claims: use the encryption input information to produce an encrypted ranging signal; And use the encrypted ranging signal in the ranging session for ranging between the first UE and the second UE. In similarly endeavor, Sierra discloses: use the encryption input information to produce an encrypted ranging signal; (i.e. FIGS. 3A-3B illustrate secure ranging data exchange, as well as data frames that may be used to transmit the secure ranging data, according to embodiments described herein. As described in paragraph [0044]) . And use the encrypted ranging signal in the ranging session for ranging between the first UE and the second UE. (i.e., As shown in FIG. 3A, a first device 301 and a second device 302 can perform a wireless data exchange during a secure ranging cycle. As described in paragraph [0045]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sierra into the invention of Xu in order to provide a more secure communication for the ranging session of the user equipment. Regarding claim 2, 10, 18, and 26: Xu, and Sierra disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Furthermore, Sierra further discloses: wherein the encryption input information is first encryption input information, and wherein the processor is configured to: communicate, via the transceiver, with the second UE to agree to second encryption input information; (i.e., The secure connection can be used to establish one or more ranging keys as described herein. As described in paragraph [0033]. And use the first encryption input information and the second encryption input information to produce the encrypted ranging signal. (i.e., The ranging keys can then be used to encrypt data transmitted during a ranging process. As described in paragraph [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sierra into the invention of Xu in order to provide a more secure communication for the ranging session of the user equipment. Regarding claim 3, 11, 19, and 27: Xu, and Sierra disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Furthermore, Sierra further discloses: wherein the second encryption input information comprises a first identity associated with the first entity, or a second identity associated with the second entity, or a third identity associated with the first UE, or any combination thereof. (i.e., The session key can then be combined with session parameters, such as a session identifier, sequence identifier, transmitter identifier, or a combination of such session parameters to create a seed 419 and this seed can then be used as an input to a random number generator 421. As described in paragraph [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sierra into the invention of Xu in order to provide a more secure communication for the ranging session of the user equipment. Regarding claim 4, 12, 20, and 28: Xu, and Sierra disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Furthermore, Sierra further discloses: wherein the second encryption input information comprises at least one key derivation function parameter, and wherein the processor is configured to use the at least one key derivation function parameter as part of a key derivation function to produce the encrypted ranging signal. (i.e., In a further embodiment the ranging apparatus additionally comprises a cryptographic engine to derive at least the message session key and derived ranging key via a key derivation function. As described in paragraph [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sierra into the invention of Xu in order to provide a more secure communication for the ranging session of the user equipment. Regarding claim 5, 13, 21, and 29: Xu, and Sierra disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Furthermore, Sierra further discloses: wherein the at least one key derivation function parameter comprises a random salt, or an indication of a proprietary key derivation function, or a combination thereof. (i.e., Generated or derived per-session/configuration input and key material 510 includes the session key 511 and negotiated configuration 512 as inputs, which are used to generate a salt 515, salted hash 514, a message session key (mSK 517), and a privacy key (mPK 519). As described in paragraph [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sierra into the invention of Xu in order to provide a more secure communication for the ranging session of the user equipment. Regarding claim 6, 14, 22, and 30 Xu, and Sierra disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Furthermore, Sierra further discloses: wherein at least some of the second encryption input information replaces at least some of the first encryption input information. (i.e., Data is encrypted using a block cipher algorithm in cipher block chaining mode to create a chain of blocks. Each block depends on the proper encryption of the previous block, creating an interdependence that ensures that a change to any of the plaintext bits will cause the final encrypted block to change in a way that cannot be predicted or counteracted without knowing the key to the block cipher. As described in paragraph [0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sierra into the invention of Xu in order to provide a more secure communication for the ranging session of the user equipment. Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xu et al. (Hereinafter “Xu”, US 10447725), in view of Sierra et al. (Hereinafter “Sierra”, US 20200336303), and further in view of ZHAO et al. (Hereinafter “Zhao”, US 20220053323). Regarding claim 7, 15, and 23: Xu, and Sierra disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. But does not expressly disclose features of these claims: wherein the processor is configured to receive the encryption input information from a transmission/reception point in a broadcast message. In similarly endeavor, Zhao discloses: wherein the processor is configured to receive the encryption input information from a transmission/reception point in a broadcast message. (i.e., [0038] In an exemplary embodiment, sending the encrypted message includes that the encrypted message is sent through a broadcast communication mode, or the encrypted message is sent to the receiving device through a point-to-point communication mode. As described in paragraph [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Zhao into the invention of Xu and Sierra in order to provide a more secure communication for the ranging session of the user equipment. Claims 8, 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xu et al. (Hereinafter “Xu”, US 10447725), in view of Sierra et al. (Hereinafter “Sierra”, US 20200336303), and further in view of Oshima (Hereinafter “Oshima”, US 20090034731), and Johnston (Hereinafter “Johnston”, GB 2551820). Regarding claim 8, 16, and 24: Xu, and Sierra disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. But does not expressly disclose features of these claims: wherein the processor is configured to receive the encryption input information from a third UE in a positioning assistance message, and at least one of configured to produce the encrypted ranging signal based on the positioning assistance message identifying the second UE, or use the encrypted ranging signal in the ranging session based on the positioning assistance message identifying the second UE, or a combination thereof. In similarly endeavor, Oshima discloses: wherein the processor is configured to receive the encryption input information from a third UE in a positioning assistance message, and at least one of configured to: (i.e., and the information processing apparatus including a third communication unit that establishes wireless communication with the portable terminal device. As described in paragraph [0010]). The combination of Xu, Sierra, and Oshima disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. But does not expressly disclose features of these claims: produce the encrypted ranging signal based on the positioning assistance message identifying the second UE, or use the encrypted ranging signal in the ranging session based on the positioning assistance message identifying the second UE, or a combination thereof. In similarly endeavor, Johnston discloses: produce the encrypted ranging signal based on the positioning assistance message identifying the second UE, or use the encrypted ranging signal in the ranging session based on the positioning assistance message identifying the second UE, or a combination thereof. (i.e. receiving from the first device, in response to said request message, a permission message associated with the third device and controlling communication between the third device and the second device based on the permission message, wherein controlling communication from the third device to the second device comprises at least one of: (i) controlling selection messages from the third device and (ii) providing the third device with access to the secure data resource device. As described in claim 10). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M. VO whose telephone number is (571)272-9854. The examiner can normally be reached T-F; 7:30 - 5:30. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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. /Eric M. Vo/Examiner, Art Unit 2644 /KATHY W WANG-HURST/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/729,651 Page 2 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/729,651 Page 3 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/729,651 Page 4 Art Unit: 2644
Prosecution Insights