Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/825,267 filed on 9/5/24. Claims 1 – 20 has been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 10, 13 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Polo et al. (US 2013/0259230, Polo hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, Polo teaches A method, comprising (BLE Central device, Fig. 1 – 2; has a processor 202):
receiving an indication of a wireless communication device with which find location operations are allowed to be performed (However, because a BLE peripheral can change and/or rotate its RPA and embed the RPA within packets sent in an advertising channel, the ability of an attacker to track the location or movements of a BLE peripheral based upon the device address included in packets sent in an advertising channel is limited, paragraph 11), wherein the indication comprises a first identity resolving key (IRK) that is unique to the wireless communication device (An RPA is resolvable based upon an identity resolving key (IRK), which can be provided from the BLE peripheral to the BLE central device during a pairing phase. A particular IRK value allows the BLE central device to resolve a number of RPA's that can be chosen by the BLE peripheral device so that the BLE central device can resolve and identify even a changed or rotated RPA chosen by a BLE peripheral device, paragraph 11);
receiving a payload of an advertisement comprising an IRK (a BLE central device is not sufficiently provided with the ability by the Bluetooth 4.0 specification to generate, change and/or rotate its associated RPA. Additionally, in many cases, a BLE central device transmits packets in an advertising channel that include its device address in response to advertising packets or other data from a BLE peripheral, particularly in response to advertising packets to a BLE peripheral to which it is bonded or paired, paragraph 12,19); and
comparing the IRK to the first IRK (such as the current RPA corresponding to the IRK associated with the BLE peripheral 101 from the whitelist table 321. Because the BLE peripheral 101 is provided with a unique IRK by the privacy logic 517, the BLE peripheral 101 can resolve the RPA based upon the IRK. RPA resolution by the BLE peripheral 101 means that the BLE peripheral 101 can identify the BLE circuit 201 from the RPA because the RPA maps onto the IRK using a resolution algorithm, paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 13, Polo teaches the method of clam 10, Polo further teaches wherein receiving the first IRK from a Bluetooth controller (Bluetooth central device, Fig. 1 - 2).
Regarding claim 14, Polo teaches The method of claim 13, Polo further teaches wherein the payload of the advertisement is received from the Bluetooth controller (a BLE central device is not sufficiently provided with the ability by the Bluetooth 4.0 specification to generate, change and/or rotate its associated RPA. Additionally, in many cases, a BLE central device transmits packets in an advertising channel that include its device address in response to advertising packets or other data from a BLE peripheral, particularly in response to advertising packets to a BLE peripheral to which it is bonded or paired, paragraph 12,19).
Regarding claim 15, Polo teaches The method of claim 10, wherein the payload of the advertisement is encrypted based on a Bluetooth address of a device transmitting the advertisement and the IRK (an IRK corresponding to the periodically rotating RPA is initially distributed from the BLE central device 103 to the BLE peripheral 101 over an encrypted link as provided by the Bluetooth specification, paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 16, The method of claim 15, further comprising: decrypting the payload using the first IRK and a Bluetooth address of the wireless communication device (Therefore, in this scenario, the BLE peripheral 101 can determine the identity of the BLE central device 103 while an attacker that is merely sniffing unencrypted packets in an advertising channel cannot, as the RPA can be changed by the BLE central device, paragraph 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 11 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo et al. (US 2013/0259230, Polo hereafter) in further view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0091254, Lee hereafter).
Regarding claim 11, Polo with Mayor teaches claim 10, however, does not specifically teach ignore the advertisement when the IRK does not match the first IRK.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches ignore the advertisement when the IRK does not match the first IRK (the electronic device may not identify the external electronic device which transmits the BLE ADV packet, and may discard the received BLE ADV packet in operation 511. A case that the external electronic device which transmits the BLE ADV packet may not be identified may mean a case that it has failed to resolve the RPA included in the BLE ADV packet, paragraph 217).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Lee’s discard/ignore the IRK with the combined system of Polo. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can discard the packet so it does not take up the storage space.
Regarding claim 12, Polo teaches claim 10, however, does not specifically teach send, when the IRK matches the first IRK, a message to an application processor indicating the wireless communication device has been identified in a find location operation.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches send, when the IRK matches the first IRK, a message to an application processor indicating the wireless communication device has been identified in a find location operation. (As a result of identifying, if there is the hash value identical to the hash value included in the detected RPA, an external electronic device corresponding to an IRK used to generate the hash value identical to the hash value included in the detected RPA may be identified as an external electronic device which transmits the BLE ADV packet in operation 509. Identifying the external electronic device which transmits the ADV packet may mean success in resolving the RPA included in the BLE ADV packet, paragraph 216).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Lee’s discard/ignore the IRK with the combined system of Polo. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can successfully identify the device in pool of devices.
10. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo et al. (US 2013/0259230, Polo hereafter) in further view of Kajuluri et al. (US 2024/0147237, Kajuluri hereafter).
Regarding claim 17, Polo with Mayor teaches claim 1, however does not specifically teach wherein the payload of the advertisement is encrypted using a SipHash function.
In the same field of endeavor, Kajuluri teaches wherein the payload of the advertisement is encrypted using a SipHash function (Encryption Standard (AES). For another example, a hash algorithm may be executed on the authentication key 210. The hash algorithm can be a cryptographic hash function, e.g., a keyed cryptographic hash function such as BLAKE2, BLAKE3, HMAC, KMAC, MD6, one-key MAC, PMAC, Poly1305-AES, SipHash, HighwayHash, UMAC, VMAC, etc., or may be a simpler hash function such as MD5.).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Kajuluri’s SipHash function with the combined apparatus of Polo. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because SipHash function is vulnerable to collision attacks since it uses 128-bit secret key.
11. Claim(s) 1, 4 – 7, 9, 18 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo et al. (US 2013/0259230, Polo hereafter) in further view of Mayor (US 9,479,920).
Regarding claim 1, Polo teaches An apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to (BLE Central device, Fig. 1 – 2; has a processor 202):
process an indication of a wireless communication device with which the apparatus is allowed to perform find location operations (However, because a BLE peripheral can change and/or rotate its RPA and embed the RPA within packets sent in an advertising channel, the ability of an attacker to track the location or movements of a BLE peripheral based upon the device address included in packets sent in an advertising channel is limited, paragraph 11), wherein the indication comprises a first identity resolving key (IRK) that is unique to the wireless communication device (An RPA is resolvable based upon an identity resolving key (IRK), which can be provided from the BLE peripheral to the BLE central device during a pairing phase. A particular IRK value allows the BLE central device to resolve a number of RPA's that can be chosen by the BLE peripheral device so that the BLE central device can resolve and identify even a changed or rotated RPA chosen by a BLE peripheral device, paragraph 11);
process a payload of an advertisement comprising an IRK (a BLE central device is not sufficiently provided with the ability by the Bluetooth 4.0 specification to generate, change and/or rotate its associated RPA. Additionally, in many cases, a BLE central device transmits packets in an advertising channel that include its device address in response to advertising packets or other data from a BLE peripheral, particularly in response to advertising packets to a BLE peripheral to which it is bonded or paired, paragraph 12,19); and
compare the IRK to the first IRK received by the processor (such as the current RPA corresponding to the IRK associated with the BLE peripheral 101 from the whitelist table 321. Because the BLE peripheral 101 is provided with a unique IRK by the privacy logic 517, the BLE peripheral 101 can resolve the RPA based upon the IRK. RPA resolution by the BLE peripheral 101 means that the BLE peripheral 101 can identify the BLE circuit 201 from the RPA because the RPA maps onto the IRK using a resolution algorithm, paragraph 30).
However, does not specifically disclose always on processor. Even though known in the art to use the always on processor to save power.
In the same field of endeavor, Mayor teaches always on processor (FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary mobile device 302 participating in a crowd-sourced lost-and-found service. Mobile device 302 can include the components, and perform the operations, of mobile device 102 of FIG. 1 and FIG. 2. In addition, mobile device 302 can include always-on processor (AOP) 306, col 5, lines 35 - 46).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Mayor’s AOP with the apparatus of Polo. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because AOP can be a processor designed to consume power at a level that is sufficiently low to enable the processor to be always in an active or “on” mode; which will help device with higher battery life.
Regarding claim 4, Polo with Mayor teaches The apparatus of claim 1, Polo further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: process, based on signaling received from a Bluetooth controller, the first IRK (Bluetooth central device, Fig. 1 - 2).
Regarding claim 5, Polo with Mayor teaches The apparatus of claim 4, Polo further teaches wherein the payload of the advertisement is received from the Bluetooth controller (a BLE central device is not sufficiently provided with the ability by the Bluetooth 4.0 specification to generate, change and/or rotate its associated RPA. Additionally, in many cases, a BLE central device transmits packets in an advertising channel that include its device address in response to advertising packets or other data from a BLE peripheral, particularly in response to advertising packets to a BLE peripheral to which it is bonded or paired, paragraph 12,19).
Regarding claim 6, Polo with Mayor teaches The apparatus of claim 1, Polo wherein the payload of the advertisement is encrypted based on a Bluetooth address of a device transmitting the advertisement and the IRK (an IRK corresponding to the periodically rotating RPA is initially distributed from the BLE central device 103 to the BLE peripheral 101 over an encrypted link as provided by the Bluetooth specification, paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 7, Polo with Mayor teaches the apparatus of claim 6, Polo teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: decrypt the payload using the first IRK and a Bluetooth address of the wireless communication device (Therefore, in this scenario, the BLE peripheral 101 can determine the identity of the BLE central device 103 while an attacker that is merely sniffing unencrypted packets in an advertising channel cannot, as the RPA can be changed by the BLE central device, paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 9, Polo with Mayor teaches The apparatus of claim 1, Mayor further teaches wherein the processing circuit comprises an always on processor (FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary mobile device 302 participating in a crowd-sourced lost-and-found service. Mobile device 302 can include the components, and perform the operations, of mobile device 102 of FIG. 1 and FIG. 2. In addition, mobile device 302 can include always-on processor (AOP) 306, col 5, lines 35 - 46).
Regarding claim 18, Polo teaches The method of claim 10, however, does not specifically teach and/or suggest wherein the method is performed by an always on processor.
In the same field of endeavor, Mayor teaches always on processor (FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary mobile device 302 participating in a crowd-sourced lost-and-found service. Mobile device 302 can include the components, and perform the operations, of mobile device 102 of FIG. 1 and FIG. 2. In addition, mobile device 302 can include always-on processor (AOP) 306, col 5, lines 35 - 46).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Mayor’s AOP with the apparatus of Polo. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because AOP can be a processor designed to consume power at a level that is sufficiently low to enable the processor to be always in an active or “on” mode; which will help device with higher battery life.
Regarding claim 19, the wireless device substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
12. Claim(s) 2 – 3, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo et al. (US 2013/0259230, Polo hereafter) in further view of Mayor (US 9,479,920) in further view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0091254, Lee hereafter).
Regarding claim 2, Polo with Mayor teaches claim 1, however, does not specifically teach ignore the advertisement when the IRK does not match the first IRK.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches ignore the advertisement when the IRK does not match the first IRK (the electronic device may not identify the external electronic device which transmits the BLE ADV packet, and may discard the received BLE ADV packet in operation 511. A case that the external electronic device which transmits the BLE ADV packet may not be identified may mean a case that it has failed to resolve the RPA included in the BLE ADV packet, paragraph 217).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Lee’s discard/ignore the IRK with the combined system of Polo and Mayor. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can discard the packet so it does not take up the storage space.
Regarding claim 3, Regarding claim 2, Polo with Mayor teaches claim 1, however, does not specifically teach send, when the IRK matches the first IRK, a message to an application processor indicating the wireless communication device has been identified in a find location operation.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches send, when the IRK matches the first IRK, a message to an application processor indicating the wireless communication device has been identified in a find location operation. (As a result of identifying, if there is the hash value identical to the hash value included in the detected RPA, an external electronic device corresponding to an IRK used to generate the hash value identical to the hash value included in the detected RPA may be identified as an external electronic device which transmits the BLE ADV packet in operation 509. Identifying the external electronic device which transmits the ADV packet may mean success in resolving the RPA included in the BLE ADV packet, paragraph 216).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Lee’s discard/ignore the IRK with the combined system of Polo and Mayor. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can successfully identify the device in pool of devices.
Regarding claim 20, Polo teaches claim 19, however, does not specifically teach wherein the always on processor is further configured to: ignore the advertisement when the IRK does not match the first IRK; and send, when the IRK matches the first IRK, a message to an application processor of the first wireless communication device indicating the second wireless communication device has been identified in a find location operation.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein the always on processor is further configured to: ignore the advertisement when the IRK does not match the first IRK; and send, when the IRK matches the first IRK (the electronic device may not identify the external electronic device which transmits the BLE ADV packet, and may discard the received BLE ADV packet in operation 511. A case that the external electronic device which transmits the BLE ADV packet may not be identified may mean a case that it has failed to resolve the RPA included in the BLE ADV packet, paragraph 217), a message to an application processor of the first wireless communication device indicating the second wireless communication device has been identified in a find location operation (As a result of identifying, if there is the hash value identical to the hash value included in the detected RPA, an external electronic device corresponding to an IRK used to generate the hash value identical to the hash value included in the detected RPA may be identified as an external electronic device which transmits the BLE ADV packet in operation 509. Identifying the external electronic device which transmits the ADV packet may mean success in resolving the RPA included in the BLE ADV packet, paragraph 216).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Lee’s discard/ignore the IRK with the combined system of Polo and Mayor. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can discard the packet so it does not take up the storage space and can successfully identify the device in pool of devices.
13. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo et al. (US 2013/0259230, Polo hereafter) in further view of Mayor (US 9,479,920) in further view of Kajuluri et al. (US 2024/0147237, Kajuluri hereafter).
Regarding claim 8, Polo with Mayor teaches claim 1, however does not specifically teach wherein the payload of the advertisement is encrypted using a SipHash function.
In the same field of endeavor, Kajuluri teaches wherein the payload of the advertisement is encrypted using a SipHash function (Encryption Standard (AES). For another example, a hash algorithm may be executed on the authentication key 210. The hash algorithm can be a cryptographic hash function, e.g., a keyed cryptographic hash function such as BLAKE2, BLAKE3, HMAC, KMAC, MD6, one-key MAC, PMAC, Poly1305-AES, SipHash, HighwayHash, UMAC, VMAC, etc., or may be a simpler hash function such as MD5.).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Kajuluri’s SipHash function with the combined apparatus of Polo and Mayor. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because SipHash function is vulnerable to collision attacks since it uses 128-bit secret key.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights