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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 4/24/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the filing of 4/24/2026, claims 1-20 were pending in the previous filing of 9/17/2024, which amended the claims filed with application on 7/01/2024.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/30/2026 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Applicant’s Amendments / Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103
The applicant’s remarks, on pages 6-10 of the response / amendment, the applicant argues the features which allegedly distinguish over the previously cited references cited in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Previous Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the previous action, claim 11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. The applicant’s amendments in the most recent response overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220014966 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim), in view of US 20230066604 to Huang et al. (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches,
A secure transmission method, comprising ([0008] & [0010] teach compression and ciphering of data sent on a network. See also fig. 1F sending and fig. 1L receiving.)
encrypting, by a first device, a packet header of a to-be-sent packet according to a transport layer security protocol to obtain an encrypted packet header, … ([0007-8] teaches ciphering the UDC header. See also Abstract & [0010]. One of skill in the art understands the UDC and PDCP are operated at the same level, which corresponds to the transport layer security protocol. [0010] teaches using data to generate a compressed & ciphered block and header.) (Applicant’s printed publication at [0116] describes PDCP layer protocol being performed at the transport layer security protocol.)
([0010] teaches a PDCP service compressing and ciphering data used to generate a header and block / data. [0006] teaches not applying the compression / ciphering to a block because it has already been compressed / processed by an upper layer / “application layer”. See also fig. 1F & its description in [0133-136] describing uplink / sending of the data and explicitly teaches “application layer” data being processed by PDCP layer.)
wherein the to-be-sent packet after encryption of the packet header and encryption of the data is the data is an encrypted packet; ([0010] teaches ciphering header and block.)
sending, by the first device, the encrypted packet to a second device. ([0010] teaches transmitter / transmitting, and [0011] teaches a transceiver to receive the packet. See also, fig. 1F & [0133-136] teach transmitter performing compression and receiver performing decompression, with ciphering included in the compression.)
Kim fails to explicitly teach data that is already encrypted by a layer / protocol is not being encrypted again by a different layer / protocol,
However, Huang teaches,
encrypting, by a first device, a packet header of a to-be-sent packet according to a (Huang, [0031] teaches "encryption scheme that provides (i) encryption of a packet header instead of encrypting complete packet when a payload of the packet is already encrypted in application layer or wireless layer".)
encrypting, by the first device, data in the to-be-sent packet according to an application layer security protocol to obtain encrypted data (Huang, [0031] teaches "when a payload (“data”) of the packet is already encrypted in application layer or wireless layer".) without being encrypted by the ([0031] & [0034] teach that the payload / “data” is not encrypted by the lower layer because it is already encrypted by the higher application layer. Only the header is encrypted by the lower layer, and thus unnecessary double encryption of payload is not performed by the lower layer. [0027] teaches encrypting at different layers.)
wherein the to-be-sent packet after encryption of the packet header and encryption of the data is the data is an encrypted packet; (Huang, [0031])
sending, by the first device, the encrypted packet to a second device. (Huang, fig. 1)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim, which teaches selective compression and ciphering of headers and data / blocks based on a determination of whether compression has occurred at a higher layer, ([0006]) and the compression and ciphering of headers ([0008] & [0010]), with Huang, which also teaches encrypting portions of a packet including header and payload (Abstract), and additionally teaches using a lower level layer to encrypt only the header when a higher level already encrypted the payload ([0031]) where different layers perform different encryption ([0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Kim with the added ability to perform different encryption of different payload portions (headers or payload) at different layers without performing unnecessary double encryption, as taught by Huang, for the purpose of maintaining security while increasing computational efficiency by not performing unnecessary double encryption on portion of the packet (e.g., payload).
Regarding claim 2, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the application layer security protocol comprises:
a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer protocol. (Kim, [0144-147] teaches the PDCP different than the SDAP layer, where [0147] teaches the SDAP layer performing the ciphering of the UDC header. One of skill in the art will understand that in OSI the application layer is above layer 2, which includes the PDCP. Alternatively, the examiner may interpret this feature as PDCP being at or under the layer of the application layer / layer 7 in the OSI model.) (As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, applicant’s printed publication at [0116] describes PDCP layer protocol being performed at the transport layer security protocol.)
Regarding claim 3, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the transport layer security protocol comprises a media access control security protocol or an internet protocol security protocol. (Kim, [0059] teaches medium access controls (MACs) which is the same as media access controls, as part of the radio link controls, which are at the transport layer.)
Regarding claim 5, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the to-be-sent packet further comprises second data that is not encrypted by the application layer security protocol, the encrypted packet further comprises encrypted data, (Kim, [0006] & [0010]) (Huang, Fig. 3a) and the method further comprises:
encrypting, by the first device, the second data according to the transport layer security protocol to obtain the encrypted data. (Kim, [0006] & [0010] teaches the upper layer providing already compressed / ciphered data that is not again compressed / ciphered, preventing un-needed encryption.) (Huang, fig. 3a, , UDP header and ESP header 302.)
Regarding claim 6, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 5,
wherein the second data is located before the encrypted data. (Huang, fig. 3, UDP header and ESP header 302.)
Regarding claim 9, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the encrypted data is air interface data. (Kim, [0135] teaches ciphering all data, except for the UDC header to be used for uplink, which at least figs. 1A & 1B are used for radio transmission / “air interface data”.)
Regarding claim 10, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 1, wherein before the encrypted packet is generated, the method further comprises: (Kim, fig. 1E teaches multiple packets between the transmitter and receiver.)
receiving, by the first device, a second encrypted packet from the second device; and (Kim, fig. 1E and fig. 2E teach data transmission. [0006] teaches multiple IP flows. [0010-11] teach the transmission of compresses and ciphered data to a receiver. [0163] teaches the deciphering and decompression in detail.)
performing, by the first device, an integrity check on the second encrypted packet according to the transport layer security protocol, wherein the integrity check fails. (Kim, fig. 1L teaches performing integrity protection, [0160] teaches an error detected by the integrity detection using data from a header.)
Regarding claim 11, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 1, wherein before the encrypted packet is generated, the method further comprises:
sending, by the first device, a third encrypted packet to the second device, wherein the third encrypted packet is generated by encrypting the to-be-sent packet according to the transport layer security protocol; and (Kim, fig. 1E and fig. 2E teach data transmission. [0006] teaches multiple IP flows. [0010-11] teach the transmission of compresses and ciphered data to a receiver. [0006] & [0010] teaches the upper layer providing already compressed / ciphered data that is not again compressed / ciphered, preventing un-needed encryption. The decision not to encrypt is performed by the lower layer / “transport layer”.)
receiving, by the first device, indication information from the second device, wherein the indication information indicates that an integrity check on the third encrypted packet fails. (Kim, fig. 1L teaches performing integrity protection, [0160] teaches an error detected by the integrity detection using data from a header.)
Regarding claim 12, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the first device is a source device for packet transmission or a routing device that connects the source device and a destination device in Ethernet, the destination device is for packet transmission in the Ethernet, and the second device is the destination device or the routing device that connects the source device and the destination device. (Kim, [0059] teaches the PDCU routing transmissions / reception. [0213] teaches the Ethernet being used to perform the features discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.) (Huang, fig. 1)
Regarding claim 13, Kim and Huang teach,
A secure transmission method comprising
receiving, by a second device, an encrypted packet from a first device,
wherein the encrypted packet comprises an encrypted packet header and encrypted data,
wherein the packet header is encrypted by a transport layer security protocol, and
wherein the data is encrypted by an application layer security protocol without being encrypted by the transport layer security protocol; and
decrypting, by the second device, the encrypted packet header according to the transport layer security protocol. (Kim, [0010] as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, teaches transmission of the data, [0011] teaches receiving the data of claim 13. See also [0163] teaching the deciphering and decompression of the data that was received. Fig. 1B teaches the reception and decompression / deciphering of the data from UE by LTE eNB.) (Huang, [0023] & [0028] teaches decryption. Fig. 1)
Claim 13 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 13, wherein the application layer security protocol comprises a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer protocol.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 15, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 13, wherein the transport layer security protocol comprises a media access control security protocol or an internet protocol security protocol.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 17, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 13,
wherein the method further comprises:
decrypting, by the second device, the encrypted data according to the transport layer security protocol to obtain second data.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 13, wherein the encrypted data is air interface data.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 9 above.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Huang, in view of US 20190082040 to Aziz et al (hereinafter Aziz).
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
sending, by the first device, length information of the packet . (Kim, [0279] teaches PDCP sequence number length, [0006] teaches the UDC expressing the data in terms of position and length.)
Kim and Huang fail to explicitly teach length of packet header in the information,
However, Aziz teaches,
sending, by the first device, length information of the packet header of the to-be-sent packet to the second device. ([0045] teaches including length data including packet length and packet header length.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim, which teaches selective compression and ciphering of headers and data / blocks based on a determination of whether compression has occurred at a higher layer, ([0006]) and the compression and ciphering of headers using PDCP ([0008] & [0010]), with Huang, which also teaches encrypting portions of a packet including header and payload (Abstract), and additionally teaches using a lower level layer to encrypt only the header when a higher level already encrypted the payload ([0031]) where different layers perform different encryption ([0027]),with Aziz, which also teaches PDCU used in wireless cellular networks ([0045]), and additionally teaches including length data including packet length and packet header length ([0045]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Kim and Huang with the added ability to include information to allow a determination of the packet and packet header length, as taught by Aziz, for the purpose of increasing computational efficiency by including data to speed up processing by identifying size of data to be processed.
Regarding claim 16, Kim, Huang, and Aziz teach,
The method according to claim 13, further comprising:
receiving, by the second device, first length information from the first device; and
determining, by the second device based on the first length information, a length of the encrypted packet header before being encrypted.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Huang, in view of US 20130031448 to Cheng (hereinafter Cheng).
Regarding claim 7, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 5, further comprising
Kim and Huang fail to explicitly teach length information included in second data / header data,
However, Cheng teaches,
sending, by the first device, length information of the second data to the second device. ([0025] teaches a length indicator for encrypted data / “second data”.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim, which teaches selective compression and ciphering of headers and data / blocks based on a determination of whether compression has occurred at a higher layer, ([0006]) and the compression and ciphering of headers using PDCP ([0008] & [0010]), with Huang, which also teaches encrypting portions of a packet including header and payload (Abstract), and additionally teaches using a lower level layer to encrypt only the header when a higher level already encrypted the payload ([0031]) where different layers perform different encryption ([0027]), with Cheng, which also teaches encryption of data to be transmitted ([0010] & [0025]) and the use of packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) ([0005]), and additionally teaches a length indicator of the encrypted data ([0025]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Kim and Huang with the added ability to include length data and encryption modes in the header, as taught by Cheng, for the purpose of increasing computational efficiency so that encryption and the portion of the encrypted data may be identified to increase computational efficiency while maintain security.
Regarding claim 18, Kim, Huang, and Cheng teach,
The method according to claim 17, further comprising:
receiving, by the second device, second length information from the first device; and
determining, by the second device based on the second length information, a length of the second encrypted data before being encrypted.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 7 above.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Huang, in view of US 20190230667 to Loehr et al. (hereinafter Loehr).
Regarding claim 8, Kim and Huang teach,
The method according to claim 5,
Kim and Huang fail to explicitly teach second data / header that includes control data,
However, Loehr teaches,
wherein the second data comprises control data, management plane data, or synchronization clock data transmitted on a fronthaul interface. ([0192] teaches PDCP transmission using a header that includes control data. [0024] teaches that control data is used for RRC signaling. Examiner notes that a fronthaul interface is high capacity wireless, which is taught by 5G, as taught in [0132]. See also at least Kim which is directed to cellular wireless networks.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim, which teaches selective compression and ciphering of headers and data / blocks based on a determination of whether compression has occurred at a higher layer, ([0006]) and the compression and ciphering of headers using PDCP ([0008] & [0010]), with Huang, which also teaches encrypting portions of a packet including header and payload (Abstract), and additionally teaches using a lower level layer to encrypt only the header when a higher level already encrypted the payload ([0031]) where different layers perform different encryption ([0027]), with Loehr, which also teaches ciphering / deciphering of broadcast cellular data ([0003]) and PDCP ([0192]), and additionally teaches PDCP transmission using a header that includes control data ([0192]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide Kim and Huang with the added ability to utilize control data to better control signaling, as taught by Loehr, for the purpose of increasing network efficiency in a PDCP environment.
Regarding claim 19, Kim, Huang, and Loehr teach,
The method according to claim 17, wherein the second data comprises control data, management plane data, or synchronization clock data transmitted on a fronthaul interface.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 8 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILLIAM AVERY whose telephone number is (571)272-3942. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571)272-3739.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.W.A./
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights