DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 03/10/2025, wherein:
Claim 1-18 are pending.
Claim 1-2, 5, 8-9, 14, and 17-18 are amended.
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.
Claim 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sébire et al. (US 20230232234 A1) in view of Ingale et al. (US 20200205003 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sébire discloses a data packet integrity protection method (Fig. 2), wherein the method comprises:
sending, by a first network device (Fig. 2 – second device 120), configuration information to a terminal (Fig. 2 – first device 110-1), wherein the configuration information is used to configure the terminal to perform integrity protection on a part of data packets in a media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (Fig. 2 step 2015-2025-2030 ¶0062-0067: “[0062] The second device 120 transmits 2015 the configuration information to the first device 110-1. For example, the configuration information may be transmitted via RRC signaling. If the second device 120 determine to activate the integrity protection, the configuration information may be transmitted…[0063] The first device 110-1 applies 2020 the integrity protection on the portion of the plurality of data packets. For example, the first device 110-1 may perform 2025 the integrity protection on the portion of the plurality of data packets. In some example embodiments, the first device 110-1 may obtain a sequence number of the PDU from the configuration information. The first device 110-1 may perform the integrity protection on the portion of the plurality of data packets to be transmitted in the PDU”);
receiving, by the first network device, a first data packet, a second data packet, and first indication information from a terminal, wherein the first data packet is integrity protected, the second data packet is not integrity protected, and the first indication information indicates that the first data packet and the second data packet belong to a same MAC PDU (Fig. 2 step 2035 and ¶0068 – “The first device 110-1 may transmit 2035 the plurality of data packets with the header to the second device 120. The second device 120 may decode the portion of the data packets based on the configuration information and perform an integrity protection verification on the portion of data packets” wherein the integrity protected packet are corresponding to the first data packet and the non-protected packet are corresponding to the second data packet);
performing, by the first network device, integrity verification on the first data packet based on the first indication information (¶0068 – “The second device 120 may decode the portion of the data packets based on the configuration information and perform an integrity protection verification on the portion of data packets”).
However, the reference is silent on details about discarding, by the first network device, the first data packet and the second data packet, when the integrity verification on the first data packet fails.
Ingale discloses discarding, by the first network device, the data packet when the integrity verification on the data packet fails (¶0038 – “The method includes discarding the PDCP PDUs received on the MCG leg of the Split DRB for which the integrity check has failed. The method includes suspending the transmission on the MCG leg of the Split DRB in the uplink. Further, the method includes initiating a RRC re-establishment procedure or sending a RRC message on a SRB1 or a SRB2 indicating the DRB ID of the Split DRB for which integrity check failure is determined”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Sébire to incorporate packet discarding feature from Ingale because doing so would applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve security of data transmission. The combined teaching would address the limitation discarding, by the first network device, the first data packet and the second data packet, when the integrity verification on the first data packet fails since the packets in Sébire are partially protected.
Regarding claim 10 , Sébire discloses a data packet integrity protection apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 – second device 120 - a base station - for performing the method in claim 2, which is known to have processor and memory components with executable code for performing its function) to instruct the at least one processor to:
send configuration information to a terminal, wherein the configuration information is used to configure the terminal to perform integrity protection on a part of data packets in a media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (Fig. 2 step 2015-2025-2030 and ¶0062-0067: “[0062] The second device 120 transmits 2015 the configuration information to the first device 110-1. For example, the configuration information may be transmitted via RRC signaling. If the second device 120 determine to activate the integrity protection, the configuration information may be transmitted…[0063] The first device 110-1 applies 2020 the integrity protection on the portion of the plurality of data packets. For example, the first device 110-1 may perform 2025 the integrity protection on the portion of the plurality of data packets. In some example embodiments, the first device 110-1 may obtain a sequence number of the PDU from the configuration information. The first device 110-1 may perform the integrity protection on the portion of the plurality of data packets to be transmitted in the PDU”); wherein receive a first data packet, a second data packet, and first indication information from a second network device, wherein the first data packet is integrity protected, the second data packet is not integrity protected, and the first indication information indicates that the first data packet and the second data packet belong to a same MAC PDU (Fig. 2 step 2035, and ¶0068 – “The first device 110-1 may transmit 2035 the plurality of data packets with the header to the second device 120. The second device 120 may decode the portion of the data packets based on the configuration information and perform an integrity protection verification on the portion of data packets” wherein the integrity protected packet are corresponding to the first data packet and the non-protected packet are corresponding to the second data packet); and
perform integrity verification on the first data packet based on the first indication information (¶0068 – “The second device 120 may decode the portion of the data packets based on the configuration information and perform an integrity protection verification on the portion of data packets”).
However, the reference is silent on details about discarding, by the first network device, the first data packet and the second data packet, when the integrity verification on the first data packet fails.
Ingale discloses discarding, by the first network device, the data packet when the integrity verification on the data packet fails (¶0038 – “The method includes discarding the PDCP PDUs received on the MCG leg of the Split DRB for which the integrity check has failed. The method includes suspending the transmission on the MCG leg of the Split DRB in the uplink. Further, the method includes initiating a RRC re-establishment procedure or sending a RRC message on a SRB1 or a SRB2 indicating the DRB ID of the Split DRB for which integrity check failure is determined”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Sébire to incorporate packet discarding feature from Ingale because doing so would applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve security of data transmission. The combined teaching would address the limitation discarding, by the first network device, the first data packet and the second data packet, when the integrity verification on the first data packet fails since the packets in Sébire are partially protected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4 and 11-13 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.
Claim 5-9 and 14-18 are allowed for the following reasons:
Claim 5 recites a data packet integrity protection method, wherein the method comprises:
receiving, by a second network device, a first data packet and a second data packet from a terminal, wherein the first data packet is integrity protected, and the second data packet is not integrity protected;
sending, by the second network device, the first data packet, the second data packet, and first indication information to a first network device, wherein the first indication information indicates that the first data packet and the second data packet belong to a same media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU); and
receiving, by the second network device, second indication information from the first network device, when the integrity verification on the first data packet fails, wherein the second indication information comprises at least one of the following information: identification information of the first data packet, or identification information of the MAC PDU to which the first data packet and the second data packet belong.
Claim 14 recites an apparatus for performing the method of claim 5.
The related prior art does not anticipate or render obvious the invention above:
Sébire et al. (US 20230232234 A1) discloses a data packet integrity protection method, wherein the method comprises: receiving, by a second network device, a first data packet and a second data packet from a terminal, wherein the first data packet is integrity protected, and the second data packet is not integrity protected (Fig. 2 step 2035 and ¶0068 – “The first device 110-1 may transmit 2035 the plurality of data packets with the header to the second device 120. The second device 120 may decode the portion of the data packets based on the configuration information and perform an integrity protection verification on the portion of data packets” wherein the integrity protected packet are corresponding to the first data packet and the non-protected packet are corresponding to the second data packet); sending, by the terminal, the first data packet, the second data packet, and first indication information to a first network device, wherein the first indication information indicates that the first data packet and the second data packet belong to a same media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (Fig. 2 step 2030-2035 and ¶0067 – “The first device 110-1 may generate 2030 a header of the PDU. The PDU may indicate whether the PDU is integrity protected. for example, the head may comprise at least one bit to indicate whether the PDU is integrity protected”); and receiving, by the second network device, indication information from the first network device, when the integrity verification on the first data packet fails (¶0073 – “If the integrity verification is failed, the first device 110-1 may initiate 2050 re-establishment of RRC connection between the first device 110-1 and the second device 120. Alternatively, the first device 110-1 may transmit 2055 a report indicating the integrity protection failure to the second device 120”). Sébire recites a data packet integrity protection method that comprising interaction first and second device (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) which are mobile terminal and base station. However, the reference does not describe the steps involved a terminal, a first network device, and a second network device with the first and second indication. Specifically, the reference is silent on details about (1) sending, by the second network device, the first data packet, the second data packet, and first indication information to a first network device, wherein the first indication information indicates that the first data packet and the second data packet belong to a same media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU); and receiving, by the second network device, second indication information from the first network device, when the integrity verification on the first data packet fails, wherein the second indication information comprises at least one of the following information: identification information of the first data packet, or identification information of the MAC PDU to which the first data packet and the second data packet belong.
Humbert et al. (US 20220109992 A1) discloses a method for performing integrity protection comprising: establishing a communication session between a user equipment (UE) and a node associated with a wireless access network; determining, by one or more of the UE or the node, to perform integrity protection on a subset of user data transmitted between the UE and the node; performing the integrity protection on the subset of the user data; and transmitting the user data (Fig. 4 and ¶0053-0057). However, the reference is silent on details about (1).
Ingale et al. (US 20200205003 A1) discloses discarding, by the first network device, the data packet when the integrity verification on the data packet fails (¶0038 – “The method includes discarding the PDCP PDUs received on the MCG leg of the Split DRB for which the integrity check has failed. The method includes suspending the transmission on the MCG leg of the Split DRB in the uplink. Further, the method includes initiating a RRC re-establishment procedure or sending a RRC message on a SRB1 or a SRB2 indicating the DRB ID of the Split DRB for which integrity check failure is determined”). However, the reference is silent on details about (1).
As discloses above, none of the prior art anticipate the invention of claim 5 and 14. The above references, in combination, do not render obvious the claimed invention regarding to details about (1) sending, by the second network device, the first data packet, the second data packet, and first indication information to a first network device, wherein the first indication information indicates that the first data packet and the second data packet belong to a same media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU); and receiving, by the second network device, second indication information from the first network device, when the integrity verification on the first data packet fails, wherein the second indication information comprises at least one of the following information: identification information of the first data packet, or identification information of the MAC PDU to which the first data packet and the second data packet belong. Therefore, claims 5, 14, and their dependent claims are allowable.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. 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).
/DUNG HONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights