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 with respect to claim(s) are rejected under 103, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification:
Applicant agued in the remark that Abstract has be amended.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is not any amended abstract found in the response. Abstract would have been submitted in the separate sheet.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C.112(b):
Applicant argued in the remark that the claims as amended are adequately clear and definite in meaning, taken in light of the specification and drawings as filed. Applicant draws attention to the non-limiting example set forth in [0019]-[0023] and FIG. 1 of the present application. For example, [0019] and [0022] of the present application states that, "In some embodiments, the physical layer 110 may be a layer of the transmitting device 102," where "the transmitting device 102 may be configured to modulate 122 the encrypted and encoded data (e.g., using orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) modulation 124)."
Examiner respect fully disagrees. Par 0022 discloses the he transmitting device 102 may generate the first encrypted data at the application layer by performing an XOR operation using the secret key 116 and the data of the first layer of the device 102. And Then, at the physical layer 110, the transmitting device 102 may perform a second encryption to generate a second encrypted data ( there is not any discloser of the second layer that perform the second encryption). In various embodiments, while described as performing the second encryption at the physical layer 110 of the transmitting device 102, the second encryption may be performed at an intermediary or third-party device 106 (It looks like the second encryption does not occurred in the transmitting device, the second encryption is occurring at the third-party device instead of a second layer ) (e.g., at the physical layer 110 of the third-party device 106 or at another/different layer of the third-party device 106). The second encryption at the physical layer 110 may be an encryption at the physical layer 110 which may be separate from the encryption at the application layer 108. Once the second encrypted data is generated, the transmitting device 102 may be configured to transmit the second encrypted data (e.g., via the untrusted network 114 using a transmitter or antenna of the transmitting device 102) to the receiving device 104.
Thus, the par 0022 does not disclose the performing of the second encryption at the second layer of the transmitting device 102.
Carefully looking at the specification, examiner found that par 0025 discloses at step 310, the transmitting device 302 encrypts the first encrypted data at a second layer. The second layer may include a physical layer (it does not mean the physical layer is the second layer, it can be seen as the second layer may be). But this par 0025 also lacks in the description of the second layer encryption. Par 0026 discloses the second encryption generates second encrypted data to form ciphertext 416, secured by DLE. If the DLE encryption process is used for performing the second encryption at the second layer or the physical layer, but there is not any description of the performing DLE at the second layer by the transmitting device 302 in the specification. Thus, examiner is maintaining the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C 103:
Applicant argued in the remark that Goodrich fails to disclose, at least, "transmitting, at a first geographic location, a secret key between the first device and the second device, the first geographic location being secure relative to the network" and "the second layer comprising a physical layer communicably coupled to an untrusted network
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Goodrich discloses 0030 the location of certain functionality either within the messaging client 104 of the client device 102. Par 0139 discloses the proximity sensor components and the client device 102 may have a camera system comprising the proximity sensor. And 0132 The mobile phone, i.e. the client device 102, of the second user can translate that input to virtual coordinates and transmit those virtual coordinates to the eyewear device 119 of the first user.
Haddad discloses transmitting, by the first device to the second device, a secret key at a first geographic location, the first geographic location being secure relative to the network ([0033] The method of FIG. 5 then begins at step 505, where a first access device and a second access device exchange keys according to a key exchange protocol. As part of this step each device generates a shared secret key relevant to the exchange. Either following the key exchange, or in parallel to it, the first access device sends (step 510) a location-authentication challenge to a second access device. And on detecting that a secure key exchange is occurring. The second access device, responsive to receipt of the location-authentication challenge, determines (step 515) the topological location of the second endpoint with respect to the second access device and the first access device. 0049 are able to generate a shared secret key K.sub.S).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “Described herein is a method” and it should avoid using phrases which can be implied . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Abstract recites the phase “ Described”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1,9 and 17, those There is no description as to how the applicant achieve the function of encrypting at a second layer (e.. at least claim 1, and much less “second layer comprising physical layer. The specification merely repeats the language of encrypt at the physical layer, but there is no explanation as to how this is achieved. "The description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective." LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733.
original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
All the dependent claims are rejected based on the above rational set forth in the claims 1, 9 and 17 respectfully.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al US 2022/0197485 in view of Haddad et al US 2010/0031044.
As per claim 1, Goodrich discloses A method comprising:
receiving, by a first device, data of a first layer of the first device, the data for transmission over a network to a second device (0111 the eyewear device 119 enables an encrypted link to be established between the eyewear device 119, i.e. second device and the client device 102, i.e. first device, and the client device 102 receives data from the application layer, i.e. first layer), and adds a first type of encryption to the data before exchanging the data over the physical medium and the data can be first encrypted , i.e. generate first encrypted data, by the application layer, i.e. the first layer );
encrypting, by the first device, the data at the first layer, to generate first encrypted data (0111 data can be first encrypted , i.e. generate first encrypted data, by the application layer );
encrypting, by the first device, the first encrypted data at a second layer, to generate second encrypted data (0111 the data, then be further encrypted by the physical layer, i.e. a second layer, before being exchanged over the physical medium); and
transmitting, by the first device, the second encrypted data via the network to the second device (0111 then be further encrypted by the physical layer before being exchanged, i.e. transmitting, over the physical medium. Following the exchange over the physical medium and 0112 the client device 102 i.e. the first device, communicates with the eyewear device 119, i.e. the second device, using the first protocol to exchange images or videos or virtual content between the messaging client 104 and the eyewear device 119).
Goodrich discloses 0030 the location of certain functionality either within the messaging client 104 of the client device 102. Par 0139 discloses the proximity sensor components and the client device 102 may have a camera system comprising the proximity sensor. And 0132 The mobile phone, i.e. the client device 102, of the second user can translate that input to virtual coordinates and transmit those virtual coordinates to the eyewear device 119 of the first user.
Goodrich does not disclose transmitting, by the first device to the second device, a secret key at a first geographic location, the first geographic location being secure relative to the network.
Haddad discloses transmitting, by the first device to the second device, a secret key at a first geographic location, the first geographic location being secure relative to the network ([0033] The method of FIG. 5 then begins at step 505, where a first access device and a second access device exchange keys according to a key exchange protocol. As part of this step each device generates a shared secret key relevant to the exchange. Either following the key exchange, or in parallel to it, the first access device sends (step 510) a location-authentication challenge to a second access device. And on detecting that a secure key exchange is occurring. The second access device, responsive to receipt of the location-authentication challenge, determines (step 515) the topological location of the second endpoint with respect to the second access device and the first access device. 0049 are able to generate a shared secret key K.sub.S).
Goodrich and Haddad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich to incorporate the teachings of Haddad and provide a shared secret encryption key. Doing so would provide a key exchange between devices, thereby increasing the protection in the communication.
As per claim 17. Goodrich discloses a system, comprising:
a first device comprising one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to (0110 the BLE interface of the eyewear device 119 enables an unencrypted link to be established between the eyewear device 119 and the client device 102):
receive data of a first layer of the first device, the data for transmission over a network to a second device ( 0111 the eyewear device 119 enables an encrypted link to be established between the eyewear device 119, i.e. second device and the client device 102, i.e. first device, and the client device 102 receives data from the application layer, i.e. first layer, and adds a first type of encryption to the data before exchanging the data over the physical medium and the0111 data can be first encrypted , i.e. generate first encrypted data, by the application layer, i.e. the first layer);
encrypt the data at the first layer, to generate first encrypted data (0111 data can be first encrypted , i.e. generate first encrypted data, by the application layer );
encrypt the first encrypted data at a second layer, to generate second encrypted data(0111 the data, then be further encrypted by the physical layer, i.e. a second layer, before being exchanged over the physical medium); and
transmit the second encrypted data via the network to the second device(0111 then be further encrypted by the physical layer before being exchanged, i.e. transmitting, over the physical medium. Following the exchange over the physical medium and 0112 the client device 102 i.e. the first device, communicates with the eyewear device 119, i.e. the second device, using the first protocol to exchange images or videos or virtual content between the messaging client 104 and the eyewear device 119).
Goodrich does not disclose transmitting, by the first device to the second device, a secret key at a first geographic location, the first geographic location being secure relative to the network.
Haddad discloses transmitting, by the first device to the second device, a secret key at a first geographic location, the first geographic location being secure relative to the network ([0033] The method of FIG. 5 then begins at step 505, where a first access device and a second access device exchange keys according to a key exchange protocol. As part of this step each device generates a shared secret key relevant to the exchange. Either following the key exchange, or in parallel to it, the first access device sends (step 510) a location-authentication challenge to a second access device. And on detecting that a secure key exchange is occurring. The second access device, responsive to receipt of the location-authentication challenge, determines (step 515) the topological location of the second endpoint with respect to the second access device and the first access device. 0049 are able to generate a shared secret key K.sub.S).
Goodrich and Haddad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich to incorporate the teachings of Haddad and provide a shared secret encryption key. Doing so would provide a key exchange between devices, thereby increasing the protection in the communication.
As per claim 2. Goodrich and Haddad discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises an application layer (0111 data can be first encrypted , i.e. generate first encrypted data, by the application layer, i.e. an application layer), and the second layer comprises a physical layer (0111 the data, then be further encrypted by the physical layer, i.e. a second layer, before being exchanged over the physical medium ).
As per claim 3. Goodrich and Haddad disclose the method of claim 1, Haddad discloses wherein encrypting the data at the first layer comprises encrypting, by the first device, via the secret key an encryption, the data at the first layer, to generate the first encrypted data (0033 The method of FIG. 5 then begins at step 505, where a first access device and a second access device exchange keys according to a key exchange protocol. As part of this step each device generates a shared secret key relevant to the exchange. Either following the key exchange, or in parallel to it, the first access device sends (step 510) a location-authentication challenge to a second access device. And on detecting that a secure key exchange is occurring. The second access device, responsive to receipt of the location-authentication challenge, determines (step 515) the topological location of the second endpoint with respect to the second access device and the first access device. 0049 are able to generate a shared secret key K.sub.S);
As per claim 4. Goodrich and Haddad disclose the method of claim 3, Haddad wherein transmitting the secret key further comprises wherein transmitting the secret key, by the first device, the secret key to the second device, the second device receiving the second encrypted data and decrypting a decrypted version of the second encrypted data using the secret key ( 0007 use of encryption keys. When two (or more) nodes, such as node 12 and node 14 shown in FIG. 1, establish a communication session, they are able to exchange keys in a sequence of messages and generate a shared secret encryption key (K.sub.S). Any node that does not possess K.sub.S will not be able to decrypt the transmissions between the end nodes 12 and 14. One protocol that governs such a procedure is referred to as IKEv2 (Internet key exchange version 2), although others have been promulgated as well. An ART (address reachability test) is often performed in conjunction with the key exchange so that each end node gains some assurance about the topological location of the other end node. And 0008 shared secret key provides a good deal of transmission security, it leaves the communication session vulnerable to some false-location attacks (for example the so-called man-in-the-middle attack). FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram illustrating the problem introduced by such an attack. In this example, end node 24, which is perhaps a server of some kind, receives a notification that a client wishes to establish a communication session. The client purports to be end node 22, which accesses the communication network via access router 23. A key exchange will ensue so that encrypted information may be transmitted back and forth between the two end nodes. What end node (server) 24 has no way of knowing, however, is whether it is actually conducting the key exchange with a node 26 that has interposed itself along the path between end node 24 and access router 23. If node 26 involves itself in the key exchange process, it will be able to intercept and decrypt communications).
As per claim 5. Goodrich and Haddad disclose the method of claim 4, Haddad discloses wherein transmitting the secret key is performed at a first geographic location, the method further comprising: establishing, by the first device, a connection with the network at a second geographic location, the first device encrypting the data of the first layer responsive to establishing the connection with the network (0011 the first access device sends a message to a second access point, which is purportedly providing network access to a second endpoint that is requesting the communication session. The message challenges the location of the requesting second endpoint. The second access device then determines whether the second endpoint is topologically located behind the second access device, and notifies the first access device of the results of the determination and 0033] The method of FIG. 5 then begins at step 505, where a first access device and a second access device exchange keys according to a key exchange protocol. As part of this step each device generates a shared secret key relevant to the exchange. Either following the key exchange, or in parallel to it, the first access device sends (step 510) a location-authentication challenge to a second access device. Note that the location-authentication challenge, unless a specific format is specified in a particular embodiment, may take any form that is recognizable to the second access device and causes it (assuming it is able) to continue the procedure. In another embodiment (not shown), the second access device may in some circumstances initiate the process on its own, without receiving a location-authentication challenge from the first access device, for example on detecting that a secure key exchange is occurring. The second access device, responsive to receipt of the location-authentication challenge, determines (step 515) the topological location of the second endpoint with respect to the second access device and the first access device. When this determination has been made, the second access device sends (step 520) a reply to the first access device to notify the first access device of the relative topological location of the second endpoint. ).
As per claim 18. Goodrich and Haddad discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the first layer comprises an application layer (0111 data can be first encrypted , i.e. generate first encrypted data, by the application layer, i.e. an application layer), and the second layer comprises a physical layer (0111 the data, then be further encrypted by the physical layer, i.e. a second layer, before being exchanged over the physical medium).
As per claim 19, Goodrich and Haddad disclose the system of claim 17, Haddad discloses wherein encrypting the data at the first layer comprises encrypting, by the first device, via the secret key, the data at the first layer, to generate the first encrypted data (0033 The method of FIG. 5 then begins at step 505, where a first access device and a second access device exchange keys according to a key exchange protocol. As part of this step each device generates a shared secret key relevant to the exchange. Either following the key exchange, or in parallel to it, the first access device sends (step 510) a location-authentication challenge to a second access device. And on detecting that a secure key exchange is occurring. The second access device, responsive to receipt of the location-authentication challenge, determines (step 515) the topological location of the second endpoint with respect to the second access device and the first access device. 0049 are able to generate a shared secret key K.sub.S )
As per claim 20. Goodrich and Haddad disclose the system of claim 19, Haddad disclose wherein transmitting the secret key is performed at a first geographic location, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
establish a connection with the network at a second geographic location (0007 the use of encryption keys. When two (or more) nodes, such as node 12 and node 14 shown in FIG. 1, establish a communication session, they are able to exchange keys in a sequence of messages and generate a shared secret encryption key (K.sub.S). Any node that does not possess K.sub.S will not be able to decrypt the transmissions between the end nodes 12 and 14. One protocol that governs such a procedure is referred to as IKEv2 (Internet key exchange version 2), although others have been promulgated as well. An ART (address reachability test) is often performed in conjunction with the key exchange so that each end node gains some assurance about the topological location of the other end node);
encrypt the first encrypted data at the second geographic location, to generate second encrypted data ( 0008 A key exchange will ensue so that encrypted information may be transmitted back and forth between the two end nodes); and transmit the second encrypted data at the second geographic location to the second device, the second device decrypting the second encrypted data using the secret key received at the first geographic location ( 0008 a shared secret key provides a good deal of transmission security, it leaves the communication session vulnerable to some false-location attacks (for example the so-called man-in-the-middle attack). FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram illustrating the problem introduced by such an attack. In this example, end node 24, which is perhaps a server of some kind, receives a notification that a client wishes to establish a communication session. The client purports to be end node 22, which accesses the communication network via access router 23).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al US 2022/0197485 in view of Haddad US 2010/0031044 and Bartok et al US 2014/0317409.
As per claim 6. Goodrich and Haddad disclose the method of claim 3, the combination fails to disclose the combination fails to disclose wherein a length of the secret key is set according to a security threshold of the network.
However, Bartok discloses wherein a length of the secret key is set according to a security threshold of the network([0022] The system also provides for the collection of other SSH-related information that may affect security in the network environment--such as login restrictions, key lengths, and authentication requirements--so that such information can be evaluated for compliance, a security threshold with appropriate security practices and with policies established for the network environment).
Goodrich and Haddad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich, including the teaching of Haddad to incorporate the teaching of Bartok and provide key length for login session (0022). Doing so would provide security policy for the network, thereby increasing network compliance for the key to protect the user.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al US 2022/0197485 in view of Haddad US 2010/0031044 in view of Futa et al US 2007/0121933.
As per claim 7. Goodrich and Haddad and Peters discloses the method of claim 3, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein decrypting the first decrypted data to generate the second decrypted data comprises performing an exclusive OR operation using the secret key and the first decrypted data.
However, Futa discloses wherein decrypting the first decrypted data to generate the second decrypted data comprises performing an exclusive OR operation using the secret key and the first decrypted data(0051 generate a first decryption point, i.e. first decrypted data, included in the acquired ciphertext, then multiply the first decryption point by a secret key which is a scalar to generate a second decryption point, i.e. the second decrypted data, and a decrypted text calculation unit operable to perform an exclusive-OR operation on the exclusive-OR value included in the acquired ciphertext and an x coordinate of the second decryption point, to generate the decrypted text).
Goodrich and Haddad and Futa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich to, including the teaching of Haddad, including the teaching of Futa and provide an XOR decryption (par 0051). Doing so would provide a data integrity operation, thereby increasing data integrity protection (par 0136).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al US 2022/0197485 in view of Haddad et al US 2010/0031044 in view of Bonicatto US 9,306,736.
As per claim 8. Goodrich and Haddad disclose the method of claim 1, Goodrich fails to disclose wherein encrypting the data at the first layer is performed prior to performing a channel forward error correction encoding.
However, Bonicatto disclose wherein encrypting the data at the first layer is performed prior to performing a channel forward error correction encoding( col 2,lines 15-18 can include encrypting the symbol following insertion of the error correcting code and col 3, lines 22-24 The encrypted data includes error correction data, such as forward error correction data that was inserted prior to encryption of the data).
Goodrich and Haddad and Bonicatto are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich in view of Haddad to incorporate the teaching of Bonicatto and provide forward error correction of the decryption key (col 7, lines 40-50). Doing so would provide a data integrity operation, thereby increasing data integrity protection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Goodrich et al US 2022/0197485 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang et al US 2025/0007893 in view of Haddad et al US 2010/0031044.
As per claim 9. Goodrich discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first device via a network from a second device, encrypted data (0111, the link-layer communication (the physical interface) between the eyewear device 119 and the client device 102 receives data from the application layer and adds a first type of encryption to the data before exchanging the data over the physical medium, Namely, data can be first encrypted by the application layer and then be further encrypted by the physical layer, i.e. second layer, before being exchanged over the physical medium, the further encrypted data is received by the eyewear device 119 of the BLE interface of the eyewear device 119,i.e. the first device,);
decrypting, by the first device, the encrypted data, to generate first decrypted data (0111, the data is then decrypted by the physical layer of the eyewear device 119);
decrypting, by the first device, the first decrypted data, to generate second decrypted data(0111, then decrypted again, i.e. second decrypted data, (e.g., using a different type of encryption) by the application layer, i.e. first layer ); and
providing, by the first device, the second decrypted data to an application at the second layer( 0111, then decrypted again, i.e. second decrypted data to the application layer, i.e. first layer).
Goodrich does not explicitly disclose the first device received an encrypted data from the second device, transmitting, by the first device to the second device, a secret key at a first geographic location, the first geographic location being secure relative to the network.
but Goodrich discloses 0011 the physical interface between the eyewear device 119 and the client device 102 wherein the either of those devices can be the first device and the second device (emphasis added).
Tang discloses the first device and an encrypted data from the second device ( 0132, S240a. The first device receives a second encrypted packet, i.e. encrypted data, from the second device. Correspondingly, in S240a, the second device sends the second encrypted packet to the first device. and 0136 the first device first decrypts the second encrypted packet based on the second confidentiality protection algorithm and the second confidentiality protection key. and 0133 the second encrypted packet is a packet on which the confidentiality encryption and the integrity protection according to the transport layer, i.e. second layer of the second device, security protocol is performed).
Goodrich and Tang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich to incorporate the teachings of Tang and provide an encrypted data on which a confidentiality encryption and an integrity protection are performed.
Doing so would provide a data integrity check, thereby increasing data integrity protection (par 0136).
The combination does not disclose transmitting, by the first device to the second device, a secret key at a first geographic location, the first geographic location being secure relative to the network.
Haddad discloses transmitting, by the first device to the second device, a secret key at a first geographic location, the first geographic location being secure relative to the network ([0033] The method of FIG. 5 then begins at step 505, where a first access device and a second access device exchange keys according to a key exchange protocol. As part of this step each device generates a shared secret key relevant to the exchange. Either following the key exchange, or in parallel to it, the first access device sends (step 510) a location-authentication challenge to a second access device. And on detecting that a secure key exchange is occurring. The second access device, responsive to receipt of the location-authentication challenge, determines (step 515) the topological location of the second endpoint with respect to the second access device and the first access device. 0049 are able to generate a shared secret key K.sub.S).
Goodrich and Tang and Haddad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich in view of Tang to incorporate the teachings of Haddad and provide a shared secret encryption key. Doing so would provide a key exchange between devices, thereby increasing the protection in the communication.
As per claim 10. Goodrich and Tang and Haddad disclose the method of claim 9, Goodrich discloses wherein the encrypted data is encrypted at a first layer (0111 data can be first encrypted by the application layer, i.e. first layer, and 0111 the data, then be further encrypted by the physical layer, i.e. a second layer, before being exchanged over the physical medium).
Goodrich does not explicitly disclose encrypted data from a second layer of the second device.
However, Tang discloses encrypted data from a second layer of the second device (0133 the second encrypted packet is a packet on which the confidentiality encryption and the integrity protection according to the transport layer, i.e. second layer of the second device, security protocol is performed).
Goodrich and Tang and Haddad are discloses considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich in view of Tang to incorporate the teachings of Haddad and provide a shared secret encryption key. Doing so would provide a key exchange between devices, thereby increasing the protection in the communication.
As per claim 11. Goodrich and Tang and Haddad disclose the method of claim 10, Goodrich discloses wherein the first layer comprises a physical layer, and the second layer comprises an application layer (0111 data can be first encrypted by the application layer, i.e. first layer, and 0111 the data, then be further encrypted by the physical layer, i.e. a second layer, before being exchanged over the physical medium).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al US 2022/0197485 in view of Tang et al US 2025/0007893 in view of Haddad et al US 2010/0031044 in view of Peters et al US 2008/0235746.
As per claim 12. Goodrich and Tang and Haddad disclose the method of claim 9, Goodrich discloses wherein decrypting the data at the second layer (0110 the application layer (the communication layer operating on the physically exchanged data) encrypts and decrypts data that is physically exchanged in unencrypted form over the link layer, i.e. the second layer, of the BLE communication interface. ) comprises decrypting, by the first device, via a secret key, the first decrypted data, to generate the second decrypted data( par 0111 the data is then decrypted by the physical layer, thus generate the first decrypted data, and then decrypted again (e.g., using a different type of encryption) by the application layer. The data is decrypted again, the by the application thus generate the second decrypted data).
The combination fails to disclose decrypting data via a secret key.
However, Peters disclose decrypting data via a secret key (0253 the second device needs the cryptographic element (e.g., the secret key) to decrypt the encrypted content).
Goodrich and Tang and Haddad and Peters are discloses considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich in view of Tang to incorporate the teachings of Haddad, including the teaching of Peters and provide a shared secret encryption key. Doing so would provide a key exchange between devices, thereby increasing the protection in the communication.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al US 2022/0197485 in view of Tang et al US 2025/0007893 and Haddad et al US 2010/0031044 in view of Peters et al US 2008/0235746 and Remy et al US 2019/0236287.
As per claim 13. Goodrich and Tang and Haddad and Peters discloses the method of claim 12, the combination fails to disclose further comprising receiving, by the first device, the secret key from the second device, the second device encrypting data using the secret key to generate first encrypted data, and encrypting the first encrypted data to generate second encrypted data for transmission via the network to the first device.
However, Remy discloses receiving, by the first device, the secret key from the second device (0015 encrypted keys, i.e. secret key, corresponding to panelist data 104 may be provided to a first device from the panel provider 102 , i.e. the second device ), the second device encrypting data using the secret key to generate first encrypted data, and encrypting the first encrypted data to generate second encrypted data for transmission via the network to the first device ( 0015 The second device may similarly re-encrypt the data to generate double-encrypted audience data 106′, i.e. second encrypted data, The double-encrypted audience data may be transmitted back to the first device and the double encrypted audience data 106 can be seen as a second layer of encryption to data that has been encrypted. In here, encrypt the data with encryption key to get the encrypted data. Then, the encrypted data is encrypted with the encryption key.).
Goodrich and Tang and Haddad and Peters and Remy are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich, in view of Tang, in view of Haddad, including the teaching of Peters, include the teaching of Remy and provide two layers symmetric encryption. Doing so would provide an extra layer of security, thereby increasing data protection.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al US 2022/0197485 in view of Tang et al US 2025/0007893 and Haddad et al US 2010/0031044 in view of Peters et al US 2008/0235746 and Remy et al US 2019/0236287 in view of Duchin US 2021/0399873.
As per claim 14. Goodrich and Haddad and Tang and Peters and Remy discloses the method of claim 13, the combination fails to disclose wherein receiving the secret key is performed at a first geographic location, the method further comprising:
establishing, by the first device, a connection with the network at a second geographic location, the first device decrypting the data of the first layer responsive to establishing the connection with the network.
However, Duchin discloses wherein receiving the secret key is performed at a first geographic location (par 0015, The first party may retrieve encrypted and masked (or double encrypted) location data and the location data, i.e. geographic location, is masked (or double encrypted), even with its secret decryption key, i.e. the secret key), the method further comprising:
establishing, by the first device, a connection with the network at a second geographic location, the first device decrypting the data of the first layer responsive to establishing the connection with the network(0015 The first party may then use its secret private key to decrypt the identities, and reveal those users proximate, i.e. a second geographic location, to the target and The first party then selects a target homomorphically encrypted masked (or double encrypted) location and sends i.e. first layer responsive, it back to the second party, i.e. a second geographic location and [0028] The first party decrypts the retrieved unique identifiers with its private key to detect those corresponding entities that were in proximity to the target reference entity and/or their proximity measures. Such detection may trigger an action, such as, altering a navigation path, transmitting an alert to one or more devices of the detected entities and/or first party).
Goodrich and Haddad and Tang and Peters and Remy and Duchin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich and Haddad and Tang and Peters and Remy, including the teaching of Duchin and provide all encrypted users proximate to the target location. Doing so would provide secrecy of the location data, thereby increasing location data sharing protection during the communication.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al US 2022/0197485 in view of Tang et al US 2025/0007893 in view of Haddad et al US 2010/0031044 in view of Peters et al US 2008/0235746 in view of Futa et al US 2007/0121933.
As per claim 15. Goodrich and Tang and Haddad and Peters discloses the method of claim 12, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein decrypting the first decrypted data to generate the second decrypted data comprises performing an exclusive OR operation using the secret key and the first decrypted data.
However, Futa discloses wherein decrypting the first decrypted data to generate the second decrypted data comprises performing an exclusive OR operation using the secret key and the first decrypted data(0051 generate a first decryption point, i.e. first decrypted data, included in the acquired ciphertext, then multiply the first decryption point by a secret key which is a scalar to generate a second decryption point, i.e. the second decrypted data, and a decrypted text calculation unit operable to perform an exclusive-OR operation on the exclusive-OR value included in the acquired ciphertext and an x coordinate of the second decryption point, to generate the decrypted text).
Goodrich and Haddad and Tang and Peters and Futa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich and Haddad and Tang and Peters, including the teaching of Futa and provide an XOR decryption (par 0051).Doing so would provide a data integrity operation, thereby increasing data integrity protection (par 0136).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodrich et al US 2022/0197485 and in view of Tang et al US 2025/0007893 and Haddad et al US 2010/0031044 in view of Peters et al US 2008/0235746 in view of Futa et al US 2007/0121933 in view of Bonicatto US 9,306,736.
As per claim 16. Goodrich and Haddad et al US 2010/0031044 and Tang and Peters and Futa discloses the method of claim 15, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein decrypting the first decrypted data is performed after performing a channel forward error correction decoding.
However, Bonicatto disclose wherein decrypting the first decrypted data is performed after performing a channel forward error correction decoding (col 7, lines 40-50 When the original data are not available to the SPU 104 that decrypts the symbols using the particular decryption key, a data encoding technique, such as a forward error correction technique (e.g., Reed-Solomon coding), can be used to determine whether the decrypted symbols match the original data. As described in more detail below, prior to encrypting the original data, the endpoint 102 can insert forward error correction data into the symbols. This forward error correction data can be used post-decryption by the SPU 104 to determine an error measure (e.g., a bit error rate or quantity of bit errors) for the decrypted symbols. col 2, lines 25-35 Decrypting the symbol can include decrypting the symbol with a symmetric key that has been assigned to the particular endpoint. Computing a measure of error comprises computing a bit error rate for the decrypted symbol; and determining whether the measure of error exceeds a threshold error measure comprises determining whether the bit error rate exceeds a threshold bit error rate. Claim 6 wherein computing, from the first symbol as decrypted using the first decryption key, the first measure of error includes using forward error correction data that is present in the first symbol. And col 7, lines 34-40 decrypts the symbols using a particular decryption key, the SPU 104 can compare the decrypted symbols to the original data to determine whether the symbols were properly decrypted using the particular decryption key. For example, the SPU 104 can perform a bit by bit or word by word analysis of the data to determine whether the decrypted symbols match the original data. Wherein the key error measure can be determine before using the decryption key to decrypt the data).
Goodrich and Haddad and Tang and Peters and Futa and Bonicatto are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data encryption communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodrich and Haddad and Tang and Peters and Futa, including the teaching of Bonicatto and provide forward error correction of the decryption key (col 7, lines 40-50). Doing so would provide a data integrity operation, thereby increasing data integrity protection.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dzung US 7,752,430 discloses col 4, lines 55-67 physical layer Synchronization to obtain this clock information and estimation of the channel transfer function h.sub.n are the two crucial ancillary tasks of the receiver. As depicted in FIG. 2, these tasks are performed by a synchronizer/channel estimator 32. The latter correlates the received signal against known replicas of "training" OFDM-symbols 31 which the transmitter periodically inserts into the sequence of "data" OFDM-symbols. According to a preferred variant of the present invention, it is proposed to also encrypt the training OFDM symbols 31 used to support synchronization and channel estimation, i.e. any training symbol inserted by the transmitter shall be encrypted by an alteration based on k.sub.n in the same way as normal data-carrying symbols. The receiver having knowledge of both the key stream {k.sub.n} and the unencrypted training OFDM symbols 31 is able to generate the encrypted time-varying training signals and use these for synchronization and channel estimation in the usual manner. However, an eavesdropper without knowledge of the encryption key is not even able to synchronize to the intercepted signal. This provides an additional strong level of protection. Preferably, it is ensured that the key stream {k.sub.n} encrypting known plaintext such as, in particular, the training symbols 31, will not be re-used to encrypt other data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU S SHOLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7314. The examiner can normally be reached EST: 9am-5pm.
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, JORGE ORTIZ CRIADO can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/ABU S SHOLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights