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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Per Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination 8/20/26
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 13-14, 17 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. 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 1-4, 7-15 AND 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (US 2020/0344605) in view of RAJADURAI et al (US 2024/0114337).
Per claim 13, LEE et al teach a method for securing access to a wireless network, comprising:
recording a set of unprotected messages exchanged between a wireless device and a wireless node, wherein the set of unprotected messages include at least one of: portions of system information messages broadcast by the wireless node, portions of a set of RA messages, or portions of a set of radio resource control (RRC) messages (paras 0019, 0046-50, 0095-103, 0110, 0115-116, 0130—receiving unprotected messages exchanged between wireless network including RRC messages, random access messages and broadcast messages);
receiving a security mode command message including first hash value from the wireless node (paras 0006-10, 0014-16, 0107, 0145, 0166-167—receiving an AS security mode command message with first hash value from base station);
generating a second hash value based on a portion of the recorded set of unprotected messages indicated in the security mode message (paras 0016, 0033, 0167, 0191—generating second hash value based on set of information from the unprotected messages); and
comparing the second hash value to the first hash value to verify the set of unprotected messages (paras 0006-11, 0048, 0106-107, 0145-149, 0155, 0166, 0172—comparison of the hash values to verify the unprotected messages).
LEE et al teach the method, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach “wherein the portion of the recorded set of unprotected messages indicated in the security mode command message excludes time-varying information in at least one of the system information messages, the set of RA messages, or the set of RRC messages”. However, RAJADURAI et al teach unprotected AS message, e.g. RRC Reject without access to clock information (para 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al for the purpose of provisioning exclusion of time-varying information, which is well-known in the art for preventing the detection of particular threats/attacks based on hash data in a security mode command message.
Claim 1 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 13 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 2, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al teach the apparatus of claim 1, LEE et al further teach wherein the set of unprotected messages are exchanged between the apparatus and the wireless node prior to establishment of access stratum (AS) security between the apparatus and the wireless node, and wherein the processor system is further configured to transmit the second hash value to the wireless node to establish the AS security between the wireless node and the apparatus (paras 0006, 0013, 0017, 0020, 0034, 0048-49, 0091, 0101-103—establish AS security between base station and UE; RAJADURAI et al: paras 0005, 0046, 0049-53, 0077-81—RRC connection establishment, communicating unprotected message and transmitting the hash values for protection of the system information).
Claim 2 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 14 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 3, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al teach the apparatus of claim 2, LEE et al further teach wherein the security mode command message includes AS security mode command message, and wherein the second hash value is transmitted as a part of an AS security mode complete message (paras 0013, 0017, 0020, 0034, 0165-166, 0191-192—AS security mode command message and indication of mismatching hash values in an AS security mode complete message; RAJADURAI et al: paras 0025, 0049, 0077—AS message RRC for transporting hashes using RRC signaling).
Per claim 4, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al teach the apparatus of claim 1, LEE et al further teach wherein the processor system is further configured to: determine that the first hash value does not match the second hash value; receive a request for the set of unprotected messages indicating a verification failure for the set of unprotected messages; and transmit the set of unprotected messages to the wireless node using AS security (Abstract, paras 0006, 0011, 0013-14, 0026-27, 0048-49, 0091, 0147-149, 0166, 0192—mismatch of hash values, receiving request of unprotected messages indicating failure to verify/authenticate and transmit unprotected messages to the UE using AS security; RAJADURAI et al: paras 0023, 0043, 0049, 0082—failure in hash verification and RRC reject).
Claim 15 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 4 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 7, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al teach the apparatus of claim 1, LEE et al further teach wherein the system information messages includes at least one of a master information block (MIB), synchronization signal block (SSB), or one or more system information blocks (SIBs) (paras 0006, 0047-49, 0091, 0093, 0097-98, 0107, 0144-148—MIB, SIBs and SIB1/2; RAJADURAI et al: paras 0045-46—MIB/SIB).
Claim 18 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 7 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 8, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al teach the apparatus of claim 7, LEE et al further teach wherein the portions of system information messages include at least one of an entirety of the MIB, an entirety of the SSB, or an entirety of the one or more SIBs, and wherein the time-varying information includes information in at least one of the MIB, SSB, or the one or more SIBs that are continuously changed over time (paras 0048, 0097-98, 0149—detecting MIB/SIB change and continuous update; RAJADURAI et al: paras 0015-16, 0045-46, 0048, 0055—MIB/SIB and time counter).
Claim 19 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 8 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 9, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al teach the apparatus of claim 1, LEE et al further teach wherein the processor system is further configured to receive an indication of the portions of system information messages broadcast by a wireless node and the portions of a set of RA messages for generating the second hash value to record (paras 0019, 0031, 0047, 0095, 0099-100, 0168, 0194—broadcasting by base station and random access messages for the set of hash value to support UEs verifying fake base stations using system queries; RAJADURAI et al: paras 0019-21, 0049, 0066—broadcast system of hash values).
Claim 20 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 9 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 10, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al teach the apparatus of claim 1, LEE et al further teach wherein the portions of system information messages include at least one of a: physical random access channel configuration; available set of random access preambles; RA response window size; initial preamble power; power ramping factor; maximum number of preamble transmissions; or contention resolution timer (paras 0090, 0103, 0110, 0132—random access channel (RACH) request and RACH procedure, RRC configuration procedure; RAJADURAI et al: paras 0082-84—RA resource, preamble/Random Access Channel, Random Access Response RAR, SI window).
Per claim 11, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al teach the apparatus of claim 10, LEE et al further teach wherein the portions of system information messages further include at least one of a: location of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) (paras 0056, 0098-99, 0123—PCID physical cell identifier and temporary identifiers; RAJADURAI et al: paras 0014, 0017, 0055—downlink channel, physical cell identifier PCI, C-RNTI).
Per claim 12, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al teach the apparatus of claim 1, LEE et al further teach wherein the apparatus verifies the set of unprotected messages and the wireless node does not verify the set of unprotected messages (paras 0004-5, 0046, 0107, 0120, 0148—verifying authenticity of system information, verification process of unprotected messages; RAJADURAI et al: para 49—unprotected AS messages).
CLAIMS 5-6 AND 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (US 2020/0344605) and RAJADURAI et al (US 2024/0114337) in view of AGRAWAL et al (US 2024/0357621).
Per claim 5, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al teach the apparatus of claim 1, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach the apparatus wherein the set of RA messages includes at least a message2 message and a message4 message received by the apparatus and a RA preamble transmitted by the apparatus. However, AGRAWAL et al teach RA message responses that include message2, message4 and RA preambles (paras 0023, 0038-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al with AGRAWAL et al for the purpose of provisioning message2, message4 and RA preambles, which is well-known in the art for including and conveying time, frequency, contention resolution and resolution data.
Claim 16 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 6, LEE et al and RAJADURAI et al with AGRAWAL et al teach the apparatus of claim 5, AGRAWAL et al wherein the set of RA messages further includes a includes message3 message transmitted by the apparatus (paras 0035, 0038—message3 messages).
Claim 17 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WO 2021/147053, USPN 2019/0043300.
V. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights