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 .
Amended claims 1-20 received on 4/22/26 have been considered. The terminal disclaimer filed on 4/22/26 was approved.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments were considered. Applicant’s arguments directed at the amended claims were also considered. Only arguments which have not been rendered moot in view of new rejections made below in response to the amendment will be addressed.
Applicant argues that Johnson (NPL “3GPP TS 33.5.36, 2019) teaches rejection of a Direct Communication Security Mode Command, not a Direct Communication Request. In response, it is noted that applicant’s argument does not reflect what is claimed. For example, in claims 1 and 17, the claims recites receiving … an indication that the peer UE rejects the Direct Communication Request. Further, even in claims 10, the claim does not recite that the Direct Communication Request was directly rejected as applicant seems to be implying. The rejection of a Direct Communication Security Mode Command can be interpreted as equivalent to the claimed rejection of the Direct Communication Request even if it is an indirect rejection since the Direct Communication Security Mode Command must be approved also for the Direct Communication Request to be approved.
The remaining arguments are moot in view of new rejections made below in response to the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “3GPP TS 33.5.36,” herein after “3GPP”.
Note that 3GPP was a document submitted with the IDS submitted on 8/12/24 and was the third item listed in the NPL documents section of the IDS. It is noted that the second page of the reference indicates a copyright date of 2019 for the reference.
Claim 10:
3GPP discloses:
receiving, from a peer UE, a Direct Communication Request, wherein the Direct Communication Request indicates security capabilities of the peer UE and a signaling security policy of the peer UE (p13, paragraphs 4-5 from the bottom of the page; Direct Communication Request message, including the UE’s signaling security policy is sent to another UE);
determining, based on a comparison of the signaling security policy of the peer UE with a security policy of the UE, whether to accept the Direct Communication Request (p13, 4th paragraph from bottom of page; Reject received Command if algorithm choice does not match initiating UE’s security policy); and
rejecting the Direct Communication Request, in response to a contradiction between a signaling security policy of the peer UE and the security policy of the UE (p13, paragraphs 4-5 from the bottom of the page; Initiating UE can reject the Direct Security Mode Command if the algorithm choice does not match its policy. In other words, security policies are compared. The rejection of the Direct Security Mode Command is considered an indirect rejection of the Direct Communication Request).
Claim 11:
3GPP further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: in response to accepting the Direct Communication Request:
generating, for the peer UE, a Direct Security Mode Command, wherein
the Direct Security Mode Command indicates a set of algorithms for data
protection, the security capabilities of the peer UE, and the signaling security
policy of the peer UE (p15, first three paragraphs); and
receiving, from the peer UE, in response to the Direct Security Mode
Command, a Direct Security Mode Complete message based at least on the set
of algorithms (p15, second and third paragraph; Message is sent if all checks pass, including the checks for the chosen algorithms).
Claim 12:
3GPP further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: generating, for the peer UE, one or more of user plane data or control signaling, wherein the one or more of user plane data or control signaling are based at least on
the set of algorithms (p13, last sentence and p15, item 5).
Claim 13:
3GPP further discloses wherein the Direct Security Mode Command further indicates security capabilities of the UE and the security policy of the UE (p13-15, See especially items 3-5 found on p14-15 which discuss use of the Direct Security Mode Command by UE_1).
Claim 14:
3GPP further discloses wherein the determination to accept the Direct Communication Request is made unless the signaling security policy of the UE is REQUIRED and one or more of the security capabilities of the peer UE comprise a NULL for signaling integrity protection or the signaling security policy of the peer UE is NOT NEEDED (p13-15).
Claim 15:
3GPP further discloses wherein, when the security policy of the UE is REQUIRED, the determination to reject the Direct Communication Request is made when the security capabilities of the peer UE comprise a NULL for signaling
integrity protection (p13-15).
Claim 16:
3GPP further discloses wherein, when the security policy of the UE is REQUIRED, the determination to reject the Direct Communication Request is made when the signaling security policy of the peer UE is NOT NEEDED (p13-15).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “3GPP TS 33.5.36,” herein after “3GPP”, in view of Suh et al (US 2010/0115275).
Claim 1:
3GPP discloses:
generating, for transmission by a User Equipment (UE) for a peer UE, a Direct Communication Request for a connection to the peer UE, wherein the Direct Communication Request indicates security capabilities of the UE and a signaling security policy of the UE (p14, step 1; As seen in the figure on the page and as discussed on the page); and
receiving, in connection with a contradiction between a signaling security policy of the UE and a security policy of the peer UE, an indication that the peer UE rejects the Direct Communication Request (p13, paragraphs 4-5 from the bottom of the page; Initiating UE can reject the Direct Security Mode command if the algorithm choice does not match its policy. In other words, security policies are compared. The rejection of the Direct Security Mode Command is considered an indication that the Direct Communication Request was rejected).
3GPP differs from the claimed invention in that 3GPP does not explicitly disclose that the peer UE does the rejection (i.e. in step 2 above). However, Suh discloses a communication setup between a UE and a peer UE (i.e. MME) where upon receiving in connection with a contradiction between a signaling security policy of the UE and a security policy of the peer UE, an indication that the peer UE rejects the Request (paragraphs 69-70; The UE examines its own security policy/mode with the MME’s security policy/mode and if they’re incompatible, the UE sends a failure indicator to the MME/peer UE. Afterwards, the MME sends a Detach Request message to the UE).
In light of Suh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 3GPP’s teachings such that the indication indicates that the peer UE rejects the Direct Communication Request. The rationale for why it is obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. algorithm such that the UE rejected the Request) for another (i.e. an algorithm where the peer UE rejected the Request instead) to achieve predictable results (i.e. the indication shows the peer UE does the rejection instead), see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 8:
3GPP and Suh further make obvious wherein the indication is received at the UE when the signaling security policy of the UE is NOT NEEDED and the security policy of the peer UE is REQUIRED (3GPP: p13-14, Section 5.3.3.1.4.2.3; Section describes security policies being defined as REQUIRED/PREFERRED/OFF, NULL, or non-NULL and UE’s having to comply with the settings in order to form successful communication connections; and Suh: paragraphs 69-70; If the security policies/modes are not compatible, the indication to reject the Request is made. One skilled in the art should appreciate that NOT NEEDED is incompatible with REQUIRED as far as security policies goes, thus the limitation further recited in claim 8 is obvious over the combined teachings of 3GPP and Suh).
Claim 17:
3GPP discloses:
transmitting, to a peer UE, a Direct Communication Request for a connection to
the peer UE, wherein the Direct Communication Request indicates security capabilities
of the UE and a signaling security policy of the UE (p14, step 1; As seen in the figure on the page and as discussed on the page. Direct Communication Request message, including the UE’s signaling security policy is sent to another UE); and
receiving, an indication of rejection of the Direct Communication Request, wherein the rejection of the Direct Communication Request in response to a contradiction between a security policy of the peer UE with the signaling security policy of the UE (p13, paragraphs 4-5 from the bottom of the page; Reject received Command if algorithm choice does not match initiating UE’s security policy).
3GPP differs from the claimed invention in that 3GPP does not explicitly disclose that receiving, from the peer UE, an indication the peer UE does the rejection, wherein the peer UE rejects the Direct Communication Request (i.e. in step 2 above). However, Suh discloses a communication setup between a UE and a peer UE (i.e. MME) where upon receiving in connection with a contradiction between a signaling security policy of the UE and a security policy of the peer UE, an indication that the peer UE rejects the Request (paragraphs 69-70; The UE examines its own security policy/mode with the MME’s security policy/mode and if they’re incompatible, the UE sends a failure indicator to the MME/peer UE. Afterwards, the MME sends a Detach Request message to the UE).
In light of Suh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 3GPP’s teachings such that the indication indicates that the peer UE rejects the Direct Communication Request, wherein the peer UE rejects the Direct Communication Request. The rationale for why it is obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substitution of one known element (i.e. algorithm such that the UE rejected the Request) for another (i.e. an algorithm where the peer UE rejected the Request instead) to achieve predictable results (i.e. the indication shows the peer UE does the rejection instead), see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 20:
3GPP and Suh further make obvious wherein the indication is received at the UE when the signaling security policy of the UE is NOT NEEDED and the security policy of
the peer UE is REQUIRED (3GPP: p13-14, Section 5.3.3.1.4.2.3; Section describes security policies being defined as REQUIRED/PREFERRED/OFF, NULL, or non-NULL and UE’s having to comply with the settings in order to form successful communication connections; and Suh: paragraphs 69-70; If the security policies/modes are not compatible, the indication to reject the Request is made. One skilled in the art should appreciate that NOT NEEDED is incompatible with REQUIRED as far as security policies goes, thus the limitation further recited in claim 20 is obvious over the combined teachings of 3GPP and Suh).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9, and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the further combination of limitations recited in claim 2 or 20. Claims 3-7 and 9 are dependent on claim 2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PONNOREAY PICH whose telephone number is (571)272-7962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST, 10am-6pm during Daylight Savings Time.
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 at 571-272-3739. 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.
/PONNOREAY PICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights