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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bains (2022/0,400,365) in view of Weber et al. (11,849,327).
For claims 1, 10, Bains teaches a method (abstract, background, summary and claims) of encrypting (Para 46), by a wireless device (Para 16), a data packet in advertising (Para 14) broadcast communication (Para 79) for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) (Para 13), the method comprising:
acquiring a preset unique identifier (ID) (Para 75) and user data (Para 23), the data packet including an advertising address (Para 42, 54), a header (not express), the unique ID (Para 65), a sort ID (Paras 65, 75), and the user data (Para 49);
encrypting the unique ID and the user data (Para 89);
generating a message authentication (Para 88) code (or hash) (MAC) (Not express); and
generating an encrypted data packet, the encrypted data packet including the encrypted unique ID, the encrypted user data, and the MAC (not express).
Bains does not expressly disclose the particular packet structure nor the message authentication code. Weber teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes:
The data packet (col. 15, line 35 – col. 16, line 2) includes a header and user data (col. 19, lines 10-20);
Generating a message authentication code (or hash) (col. 16, lines 3-30); and
generating an encrypted data packet, the encrypted data packet including the encrypted unique ID, the encrypted user data, and the MAC (col. 20, lines 20-65).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Weber in order to provide improvements to protecting BLE devices (col. 1, lines 20-65).
For claim 4, Bains teaches that the encrypting of the unique ID and the user data includes:
inspecting whether a length of the user data is a multiple of 16 bytes (Paras 29-30); and
encrypting the user data based on the inspection (Para 33).
For claim 8, Weber teaches that in the generating of the MAC is generated based on the header, the MAC is generated based on the header, the encrypted unique ID, the sort ID, the encrypted first part, and the encrypted second part (col. 20, lines 20-65).
For claim 9, Bains teaches performing the advertising broadcast communication for BLE using the encrypted data packet (Para 79).
For claim 11, Bains teaches a method of decrypting (abstract, background, summary and claims), by a server (Para 23), an encrypted (Para 46) data packet (Para 34) in advertising (Para 14) broadcast communication (Para 79) for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) (Para 13), the method comprising:
receiving the encrypted data packet (Para 89), the encrypted data packet including an encrypted unique ID (Para 75), encrypted user data (Para 49), and a message authentication (Para 88) code (MAC)(not express);
verifying (Paras 42-46) the MAC; and
decrypting the data packet based on a fact that the MAC is valid (Para 74).
Bains does not expressly disclose the particular packet structure nor the message authentication code. Weber teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes: verifying a message authentication code (or hash) (col. 16, lines 30-40). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Weber in order to provide improvements to protecting BLE devices (col. 1, lines 20-65).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bains and Weber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bamidi et al. (11,553,336).
For claim 2, Bains and Weber do not expressly disclose the limitations. Bamidi teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) where the encrypting of the unique ID and the user data includes:
extracting an indexed (col. 11, lines 45-65) encryption key (col. 11, lines 15-25) based on the sort ID (col. 14, line 60 – col. 15, line 10); and
encrypting the unique ID based on the indexed encryption key (col. 11, lines 25-35).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Bamidi in order to provide improvements to beacon security and privacy (col. 1, line 50 – col. 2, line 60).
For claim 3, Bamidi teaches that the encrypting of the unique ID is performed using a counter (CTR) mode (col. 11, lines 25-35).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bains and Weber as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yung et al. (2023/0,132,742).
For claim 5, Bains and Weber do not expressly disclose the limitations. Yung teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) where in the encrypting of the user data based on the inspection, when the length of the user data (Para 49) is a multiple of 16 bytes (Table 2), the user data is encrypted using an electronic codebook (ECB) mode based on the unique ID (Paras 26-27). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Yung in order to provide improvements to beacon encryption (Paras 1-2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bains and Weber as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (9,032,501).
For claim 6, Bains and Weber do not expressly disclose the limitations. Martin teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) where in the encrypting of the user data based on the inspection, when the length of the user data is smaller than 16 bytes (col. 17, lines 35-50; col. 25, line 60 – col. 26, line 10), the user data is encrypted using a counter (CTR) mode based on the unique ID (col. 27, line 40 – col. 28, line 20). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Martin in order to provide improvements to device verification (col. 1, lines 10-35).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bains and Weber as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kerr et al. (12,192,183).
For claim 7, Martin teaches wherein the encrypting of the user data based on the inspection includes:
dividing the user data into a first part having a length value that is a multiple of 16 bytes (col. 19, line 65 – col. 20, line 15) and a second part that is a remaining part when the length of the user data is greater than a multiple of 16 bytes (col. 25, line 60 – col. 26, line 10); and
encrypting the second part using a counter (CTR) mode based on the unique ID (col. 27, line 40 – col. 28, line 20).
Martin does not expressly disclose encrypting the first part using an electronic codebook (ECB) mode based on the unique ID; and encrypting the second part using CTR. Kerr teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (col. 34, lines 5-55; col. 44, lines 30-50). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Kerr in order to provide improvements to securing networks (col. 2, line 40 – col. 3, line 35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights