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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 6/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered. The claims remain obfuscated (see rationale and rejections under 35 USC § 112 below).
Applicant’s arguments toward the rejections under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the invention solves a technical problem of ensuring security when a data is transmitted from a first device to a second device, and again transmitted from the second device to a third device. Applicant’s claim 19 is directed to a terminal device. Therefore, applicant’s arguments in this regard are not persuasive as the features applicant relies upon in the remarks are not structural elements of the claim. Likewise, claim 20 is directed to a single network device and is addressed by similar rationale. With regards to claim 1, the claim recites “performing, by a first device, security protection on first information by using a first key” and “generating the first key” which is abstract idea in the form of a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, or where the key generation is a mathematical function. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the remaining claim elements describe generic sending/forwarding functions and the reception of data – see the below claim rejections under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest ”sending, by the first device, the first information with the security protection via a user plane to a second device, the second device is a forwarding device between the first and a third device, the first information with the security protection is sent to the third device by the second device, and the third device comprises a network device”. However, M’Raihi discloses the features in at least col. 8:54-67, and col. 9:1-24, which describe sending first information with security protection from a first device to second device for sending to third device.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest: “receiving, by the terminal device, a non-access stratum (NAS) message”. However, Baskaran discloses the features in at least ¶ 49, 244, and 255, which describe receiving a NAS message.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest: “generating, by a terminal device, the first key and/or a second key using parameters carried in the NAS message, the second key being used to generate the first key”. However, Baskaran discloses the features in at least ¶ 49, 244, and 255, which describe key generation by terminal device using parameters of the NAS message.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure remains objected to because of the following informalities: The title “Information Protection Mrthod and Device” appears to have a typographical error. 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.
Claim(s) 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is drawn to “A terminal device” comprising “a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory to causes the terminal device to perform: sending the first information with the security protection via a user plane to a second device, and the first information with the security protection is sent to the network device by the second device”. Claim 19 is directed to a single “terminal device” for performing the claimed functions, however the claim describes a second device and functions enacted by the second device. It is unclear what structural elements are comprised in the system. For example, whether the apparatus includes only a “terminal device”, or alternatively, whether the apparatus comprises a “terminal device” and “a second device”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the apparatus.
Claim 20 is drawn to “A network device” comprising “a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory to causes the network device to perform: receiving first information with the security protection from a second device, the first information with the security protection being received from a terminal device and forwarded by the second device; and performing integrity verification and/or decryption on the first information with the security protection using a first key, wherein the first key and/or a second key is generated by the terminal device using parameters carried in a non-access stratum (NAS) message received by the terminal device, and the second key is used to generate the first key”. Claim 20 is directed to a single “network device” for performing the claimed functions, however the claim describes both a second device and functions enacted by the second device (i.e. forwarding by the second device). It is unclear what structural elements are comprised in the system. For example, whether the apparatus includes only a “network device”, or alternatively, whether the apparatus comprises a “network device” and “a second device”.
The claim further describes a “terminal device” and functions of the terminal device, i.e. key generation. It is unclear what structural elements and/or functions are comprised in the system. For example, whether the apparatus includes only a “network device”, or alternatively, whether the apparatus comprises a “network device” and “a terminal device”, or some other permutation of “a network device”, “a second device”, and “a terminal device”. It is also further unclear what functions are enacted by the claimed system as the claim is directed to a “network device” but attempts to capture functions of “a second device” and “a terminal device”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14-15, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards nonstatutory subject matter.
The claim(s) recite(s) “performing, by a first device, security protection on first information by using a first key” and “generating the first key” which is abstract idea in the form of a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, or where the key generation is a mathematical function.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s)
include(s) additional elements such as “sending, by the first device, the first information with the security protection via a user plane to a second device…”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements simply merely perform the generic computer function of data transmission and/or represent the insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. The claims include additional elements including “receiving… a NAS message” which amounts to mere data gathering.
The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the additional elements when considered alone and in combination do not add
significantly more (i.e. do not at an inventive concept) to the exception.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-13, 15, 19-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10432589 to M’Raihi in view of US 20230269589 to Baskaran.
Regarding claim 1, M’Raihi teaches an information protection method, comprising:
performing, by a first device, security protection on first information by using a first key, wherein the first device comprises a terminal device (col. 8:54-67, col. 9:1-24, encrypting first information using key); and
sending, by the first device, the first information with the security protection via a user plane to a second device, the second device is a forwarding device between the first and a third device, the first information with the security protection is sent to the third device by the second device, and the third device comprises a network device (col. 8:54-67, col. 9:1-24, sending from first device to second device for sending to third device).
M’Raihi fails to teach but Baskaran teaches:
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by a terminal device, a non-access stratum (NAS) message (¶ 49, 244, 255, receiving NAS message); and
generating, by the terminal device, the first key and/or a second key using parameters carried in the NAS message, the second key being used to generate the first key (¶ 49, 244, 255, key generation by terminal device using parameters in NAS message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Baskaran. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Baskaran would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating network slice security (abstract, ¶ 244, 255).
Regarding claim 2, 24,
M’Raihi teaches:
wherein the security protection comprises integrity protection and/or encryption (col. 8:54-67, col. 9:1-24).
Regarding claim 3,
M’Raihi teaches:
wherein performing, by the first device, the security protection on the first information by using the first key, comprises: processing, by the first device, the first information by using the first key, to obtain verification information; and sending, by the first device, the first information with the security protection, comprises: sending, by the first device, the first information and the verification information (col. 7:14-35, col. 8:54-67, col. 9:1-24, sending first information, verification information).
Regarding claim 4,
M’Raihi teaches:
wherein performing, by the first device, the security protection on the first information by using the first key, comprises: performing, by the first device, encryption on the first information by using the first key, to obtain encrypted first information; and sending, by the first device, the first information with the security protection, comprises: sending, by the first device, the encrypted first information (col. 8:54-67, col. 9:1-24, key encryption and data transmission).
Regarding claim 5,
M’Raihi teaches:
generating, by the first device, the first key using the second key (fig. 2, col. 6:4-20, key generation corresponding to second key; col. 6:39-67).
Regarding claim 6,
M’Raihi teaches:
wherein generating, by the first device, the first key using the second key, comprises: generating, by the first device, the first key using the second key before performing the security protection on first information; and/or generating, by the first device, the first key using the second key according to a predetermined period (fig. 2, col. 6:4-20, key generation; col. 6:39-67).
Regarding claim 7, 21,
M’Raihi teaches:
sending, by the first device, a key identifier of the first key to the second device (fig. 2, col. 6:1-40; col. 6:39-67).
Regarding claim 8,
M’Raihi teaches:
wherein the key identifier of the first key being comprised in the first information; or the key identifier of the first key being independent of the first information (col. 6:39-67; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, 22,
M’Raihi fails to teach but Baskaran teaches:
wherein generating, by the terminal device, the first key and/or the second key using the parameters carried in the NAS message, comprises: generating, by the terminal device, a third key using the parameters carried in the NAS message; and generating, by the terminal device, the first key and/or the second key using the third key and other parameters and adopting a key derivation function (KDF) (¶ 49-50, 97, 145). Motivation to include Baskaran is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 13,
M’Raihi fails to teach but Baskaran teaches:
wherein the third key comprises at least one of Kausf, Kakma, Kseaf, or Kamf (¶ 49, 97). Motivation to include Baskaran is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 15,
M’Raihi fails to teach but Baskaran teaches:
wherein the NAS message carries a key identifier of the first key (¶ 49-50, 97, 145). Motivation to include Baskaran is the same as presented above.
Claims 19-20 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 10, 14, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M’Raihi and Baskaran in view of US 20240223547 to Munoz De La Torre Alonso.
Regarding claim 10, 25,
M’Raihi fails to teach but Munoz De La Torre Alonso teaches:
wherein the first information comprises user consent information (¶ 212-216; see also 188-211).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Munoz De La Torre Alonso. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Munoz De La Torre Alonso would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating policy control in 5G implementations (Munoz De La Torre Alonso, ¶ 212-220).
Regarding claim 14, 23,
M’Raihi fails to teach but Munoz De La Torre Alonso teaches:
wherein the other parameters comprise at least one of a user equipment (UE) identifier (ID), a random digit (RAND), a counter value, an uplink direction flag, or a downlink direction flag (¶ 212-216; see also 188-211). Motivation to include Munoz De La Torre Alonso is the same as presented above.
.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
