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 .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is issued in response to the Amendment filed on 06/10/2026.
Claims 1-2, 6-12, 14-17, and 19-25 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 3-5, 13, and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-25 are new.
Response to Arguments
3. The previous 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in response to claim cancellation and claim amendment.
Applicants’ arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 Claim Rejections with respect to claims 12, 14-17, and 19-20 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 19 is 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 19 recites: “receiving second information transmitted by the first device.” The emphasized element lacks proper antecedent basis and makes the claim ambiguous. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. For purpose of examination, the Examiner assumes the limitation as “receiving second information transmitted by/from another device.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Efficient and Consistent Key Extraction Based on Received Signal Strength for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks”), hereinafter, “Li” in view of Jimbo et al. (US 20220391351 A1), hereinafter “Jimbo.”
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses a second 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 run the computer program stored in the memory (Fig.1 with associated text and pages 5282-5283, sections II.A and B: key establishment for vehicle-second device-inherently has processor and memory to transmit and receive wireless signal) to cause the second device to perform: receiving a first wireless signal; generating a third sequence based on the received strength of the first wireless signal; and generating a second key based on the third sequence, [in a case a total length of the third sequence is greater than or equal to a preset length]. (page 5283, section B).
Li does not explicitly disclose generating a second key based on the third sequence, in a case a total length of the third sequence is greater than or equal to a preset length. However, generating a key when a sequence having a predetermined length is known in the art and Jimbo’s teaching is an example (paragraphs [0037]-[0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching of generating key from sequence with Jimbo’s teaching of generating a key when a sequence having a predetermined length to have an obvious and predictable result of generating a second key based on the third sequence, in a case a total length of the third sequence is greater than or equal to a preset length.
8. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Efficient and Consistent Key Extraction Based on Received Signal Strength for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks”), hereinafter, “Li,” in view of Jimbo et al. (US 20220391351 A1), hereinafter “Jimbo,” and in view of Benteo et al. (US 20110274271 A1), hereinafter “Benteo.”
Regarding claim 14, Li and Jimbo disclose the second device according to claim 12, wherein the generating a third sequence based on the received strength of the first wireless signal comprises: generating a wth second initial binary sequence based on received strength of a wth first wireless signal, wherein w is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (page 5283, section B: generating key form bit streams-sequence-obtained from RSS readings). Li and Jimbo do not explicitly disclose combining the wth second initial binary sequence and a (w–1)th second combination sequence, to obtain a wth second combination sequence, and using the wth second combination sequence as the third sequence. However, combining sequences is known in the art and Benteo’s teaching is an example (paragraphs [0036]-[0037] and [0045]-[0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Jimbo’s teaching of generating key from sequence with Benteo’s teaching of combining sequences to have an obvious and predictable result of combining the wth second initial binary sequence and a (w–1)th second combination sequence, to obtain a wth second combination sequence, and using the wth second combination sequence as the third sequence.
Regarding claim 15, Li, Jimbo, and Benteo disclose the second device according to claim 14, wherein the generating the wth second initial binary sequence based on received strength of the wth first wireless signal comprises: quantizing the received strength of the wth first wireless signal based on a preset quantization algorithm, to obtain the wth second initial binary sequence (Li, pages 5283-5284, section III: using vector quantization to extract bits for generating key).
Regarding claim 16, Li, Jimbo, and Benteo disclose the second device according to claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the second device to perform: in a case in which the received strength of the wth first wireless signal falls within a second quantization range, setting the wth second indicator bit to a first value, wherein the wth second indicator bit is one of M second indicator bits; or in a case in which the received strength of the wth first wireless signal does not fall within the second quantization range, setting the wth second indicator bit to a second value (Li, page 5284, section A).
Regarding claim 17, Li, Jimbo, and Benteo disclose the second device according to claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the second device to perform: transmitting third information to a first device, wherein the third information comprises the M second indicator bits (Li, page 5284, right column, paragraphs 1-3: Bob-second device- sends index numbers of zeros and ones-M second indicator bits-to Alice-first device).
9. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Efficient and Consistent Key Extraction Based on Received Signal Strength for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks”), hereinafter, “Li,” in view of Jimbo et al. (US 20220391351 A1), hereinafter “Jimbo,” and in view of Rudland et al. (US 20110135088 A1), hereinafter “Rudland.”
Regarding claim 19, Li and Jimbo disclose the second device according to claim 12. Li and Jimbo do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the second device to perform: receiving second information transmitted by the first device, wherein the second information comprises the preset length. However, sending/receiving a preset quantity to/from another party is known in the art and Rudland’s teaching is an example (Rudland, Fig.8 with associated text, S101-102: sending/receiving N- preset quantity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Jimbo’s teaching of generating key from sequence with preset length with Rudland’s teaching of sending/receiving a preset quantity to/from another party to have an obvious and predictable result of receiving second information transmitted by the first device, wherein the second information comprises the preset length.
10. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Efficient and Consistent Key Extraction Based on Received Signal Strength for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks”), hereinafter, “Li,” in view of Jimbo et al. (US 20220391351 A1), hereinafter “Jimbo,” and in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20210091942 A1), hereinafter “Nguyen”.
Regarding claim 20, Li and Jimbo disclose the second device according to claim 12. Li and Jimbo not explicitly disclose wherein the generating the second key based on the third sequence comprises: obtaining a fourth sequence based on the third sequence, and using the fourth sequence as the second key. However, obtaining a second sequence based on the first sequence, and using the second sequence as a key are known in the art and Nguyen’s teaching is an example (paragraph [0088]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Jimbo’s teaching of generating key from binary sequence with Nguyen’s teaching of obtaining a second sequence based on the first sequence, and using the second sequence as a key to have an obvious and predictable result of the generating the first key based on the first sequence comprises: obtaining a second sequence based on the first sequence, and using the second sequence as the first key.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 1-2, 6-11, and 21-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
a. Chinaei et al. (“A Novel algorithm for Secret Key Generation in Passive Backscatter Communication Systems”) discloses generating key from sequence obtained from reflected signal (Fig.1 with associated text, step 1, page 441, second paragraph; page 441, section 2.3 and pages 444-445: “Secret Key Generation”).
b. Benteo et al. (US 20110274271 A1) discloses combining sequences (paragraphs [0036]-[0037] and [0045]-[0046]).
c. Zhao et al. (A Physical-Layer Key Generation Approach Based on Received Signal Strength in Smart Home”) discloses concern of fading of wireless signal and loss of the path of received signal strength (RSS) measurements in key generation (pages 4917-4918-Introduction).
Although the above references teach similar aspects of claims 1-2, 6-11, and 21-25, none of the prior arts of record, either alone or in combination, discloses all the limitations of claims 1-2, 6-11, and 21-25.
Prior Art of Record
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
13. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH T. LE whose telephone number is (571)270-0279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 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 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.
/THANH T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights