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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on July 11, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Specification
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Specification submitted on July 11, 2024 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, Examiner acknowledges that the Drawings submitted on July 11, 2024 have been accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the term “distant.” The term “distant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “distant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the nonce change reference counter value.” There are multiple previously recited nonce change reference counter values and it is unclear as to which particular nonce change reference counter value the limitation is referring. Dependent claims 17-20 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as parent claim 16 without further remedying the indefinite language.
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, 4-6, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colacitti et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0173908 cited in the IDS filed on 7/11/2024 and hereinafter referred to as Colacitti) in view of Dworkin (“Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and GMAC”) in view of AUTOSAR (“Specification of Secure Onboard Communication Protocol”).
As to claim 1, Colacitti discloses an apparatus for drone control data security, comprising:
memory in which at least one program is recorded (paragraphs [0069]-[0071], Colacitti teaches a memory); and
a processor for executing the program (paragraphs [0069]-[0071], Colacitti teaches a processor), wherein:
the program encrypts control data and transmits the encrypted control data to a drone (paragraphs [0005], [0079] and [0233], Colacitti teaches encrypting a command for a UAV.). Colacitti does not specifically disclose the program encrypts control data in a unit of a block based on a counter block configured using a nonce value and transmits the encrypted control data to a drone along with a nonce change reference counter value (emphasis added), the nonce value initialized to an initial nonce value changes sequentially according to a predetermined sequence each time the control data is encrypted, and the nonce change reference counter value increases each time the nonce value changes as claimed. However, Dworkin does disclose
the program encrypts control data in a unit of a block based on a counter block configured using a nonce value (sections 4.1, 6.5 and 7.1, Dworkin teaches using encrypting blocks using counter blocks generated using a nonce IV),
the nonce value initialized to an initial nonce value (sections 4.1, 6.5 and 7.1, Dworkin teaches the nonce IV has an initial value), changes sequentially according to a predetermined sequence each time the control data is encrypted (sections 4.1, 6.2, 7.1 and 8.2.1, Dworkin teaches incrementing each invocation of an encryption function.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Colacitti with the teachings of Dworkin for changing sequentially because this would increase security.
The combination of teachings between Colacitti and Dworkin does not specifically disclose transmits the encrypted control data to a drone along with a nonce change reference counter value (emphasis added), and the nonce change reference counter value increases each time the nonce value changes as claimed. However, AUTOSAR does disclose
transmits the encrypted control data to a drone along with a nonce change reference counter value, and the nonce change reference counter value increases each time the nonce value changes (sections 1, 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, AUTOSAR teaches a monotonic counter incremented with each message which is transmitted to a receiver.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified invention of Colacitti with the teachings of AUTOSAR for the nonce change reference counter value increase each time the nonce value changes because this would increase security.
Claim 6 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above. (Note: claim 6 is merely the inverse of claim 1).
As to claim 4, the combination of teachings between Colacitti, Dworkin and AUTOSAR disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, when encrypting the control data, the program encrypts the counter block with a symmetric key and generates an encrypted block by performing an exclusive OR (XOR) operation on the encrypted counter block and a plaintext block, which is the control data in a unit of a block (sections 4.1, 5.1, 6.5, 7.1 and 8.2.1, Dworkin teaches a symmetric key and using XOR encryption.).
Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of the references as in claim 1 above.
Claim 9 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 4 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 4 above.
As to claim 5, the combination of teachings between Colacitti, Dworkin and AUTOSAR disclose the apparatus of claim 4, wherein: when encrypting the control data, the program generates an authentication value using the encrypted block and additional authentication data, and the authentication value is transmitted to the drone along with the control data and the nonce change reference counter value (sections 4.1, 5.1, 6.5, 7.1 and 8.2.1, Dworkin teaches generating an authentication tag. sections 1, 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, AUTOSAR teaches transmitting an authenticator with data.).
Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of the references as in claim 1 above.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 5 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 5 above
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-12 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2 recites, inter alia, “wherein the program transmits a symmetric key and the initial nonce value that are encrypted with a public key received from the drone to the drone”. The prior art was not found to disclose the cited limitation, in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 2 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Dependent claim 3 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based its dependency. Claims 7 and 8 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art for similar reasons to claim 2.
Claim 10 recites, inter alia, “wherein, before decrypting the control data, the program determines validity of the received control data based on a difference between a first nonce change reference counter value that is currently received and a second nonce change reference counter value that is received immediately before the first nonce change reference counter value”. The prior art was not found to disclose the cited limitation, in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 10 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Dependent claims 11-14 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based its dependency.
Claim 16 recites, inter alia, “when receiving encrypted control data, a nonce change reference counter, and an authentication value, determining validity of the received control data based on a difference between a first nonce change reference counter value that is currently received and a second nonce change reference counter value that is received immediately before the first nonce change reference counter value”. The prior art was not found to disclose the cited limitation, in combination with the other limitations. Therefore, claim 16 is considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art. Dependent claims 17-20 are considered to recite allowable subject matter over the prior art based its dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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.
/THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights