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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 09/05/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “IRK” in claims 1,16 is used by the claims to mean “an identity resolving key in the payload of a Bluetooth advertisement that is received,” “an identity resolving key that is compared against a first identity resolving key,” and “an identity resolving key indicating a second wireless device is allowed to perform find location operations” while the accepted meaning in Bluetooth is that “Randomized addresses that map to IRKs are transmitted in advertisements, not the IRKs themselves,” “IRKs aren’t themselves compared, but instead the randomized addresses are compared against addresses mappable to the IRK,” and “IRKs themselves in Bluetooth are not used for tracking” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Claims 2-15, 17-20 are rejected under 112(b) by virtue of dependence on claims 1 and 16. The office action will hereafter equate IRKs with randomized addresses, and for the purposes of examination interpret the limitation regarding IRKs indicating allowance for location operations as nonlimiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo et al. (US 20130259230 A1), hereafter referred to as Polo, in view of Heo et al. (US 20140094198 A1), hereafter referred to as Heo, further in view of Ledvina et al. (US 20200106877 A1), hereafter referred to as Ledvina.
Regarding claim 1, Polo teaches a first wireless communication device comprising an application processor comprising processing circuitry (Polo: Paragraph 16, it describes a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) central device as the first wireless device in this case, and that this device is any processor-based system in which a BLE circuit is integrated or connected).
generation of a first identity resolving key (IRK) that is unique to the second communication device (Polo: Paragraph 28 explains a BLE circuit that generates an identity resolving key (IRK) associated with a specific device).
A Bluetooth controller comprising processing circuitry configured to perform Bluetooth listening operations to receive a Bluetooth advertisement having a payload comprising an IRK (Polo: Paragraph 16 states that the BLE circuit is configured to scan for advertising Bluetooth packets. Polo: Paragraph 10 states that the packets shared on the Bluetooth advertising channel between devices will contain RPAs).
An always on processor (AOP) comprising processing circuitry configured to compare the IRK to the first IRK (Polo: Paragraph 17 explains figure 2, showing the structure of the Bluetooth circuit disclosed, with it having a separate processor connected to the host/application processor of the central device. By it constantly listening for Bluetooth advertisements, the processor in the BLE circuit must always be on. Polo: Paragraph 21 describes a whitelist stored in the BLE circuit that contains IRKs of all devices bonded with it).
However Polo does not teach it is the application processor that generates a first Identity resolving key, nor does this IRK indicate whether or not the second communication device is permitted to engage in specifically location operations with the first device.
Heo teaches a BLE system where a scanning processor will forward a BLE packet to an application processor depending on its header information, where this application processor is designed to control the profile for BLE communication (Heo: Paragraph 85 describes that the processor to be used on the device depends on the BLE packet’s header information. Heo: Paragraph 86 states that the actively listening processor will forward a BLE packet to the application processor for processing depending on a BLE packet’s header information. Heo: Paragraph 98 states that the application processor is the device’s main processor, which defines the profiles for Bluetooth communication).
One of ordinary skill in the art could combine these inventions by having the IRK generation process set to be handled by the device’s application processor rather its always on processor by setting a BLE communication profile. This would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in that it is combining features of similar devices to produce an apparatus that handles device ID management to the application processor, which will be more secure by virtue of an application processor having full access to a system’s resources, this change in policy would yield predictable results (Heo paragraph 98 states the full control a device’s CPU has over the Bluetooth profile).
However, Polo in view of Heo does not teach an IRK indicating permission for a device to engage in location operations with the first device. Ledvina teaches an identity key that indicates whether a device is permitted to perform find location operations with the first wireless communication device (Ledvina: Paragraph 35 states that there are authentication and identification options in ranging requests between two devices communicating wirelessly. Ledvina: Paragraph 228 describes Bluetooth as a wireless protocol used for ranging).
One of ordinary skill in the art could combine Polo in view of Heo with Ledvina by configuring the device established by Polo and Heo to use an IRK as a means to authenticate devices for location operations as disclosed by Ledvina. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to establish Polo in view of Heo which is in further view of Ledvina as an improvement, because as a result ranging is not performed with unknown devices (Ledvina paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 2, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1. Polo further discloses the processing circuitry of the Bluetooth controller is further configured to store, in firmware, a match table comprising entries for all active IRKs of the first wireless communication device (Polo: Paragraph 21 describes a whitelist used by the communication device that lists all IRK values associated with bonded BLE peripherals).
Regarding claim 6, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1. Polo teaches processing circuitry of the AOP further configured to ignore the Bluetooth advertisement when the IRK does not match the first IRK (Polo: Paragraph 21 discloses a whitelist stored in the BLE circuit containing an always on processor that contains IRKs of all bonded BLE devices).
Regarding claim 7, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1.
However, Polo in view of Heo does not teach a message sent from the AOP to application processor upon an IRK matching against a known IRK. Ledvina teaches the processing circuitry of the AOP further configured to send, when the IRK matches the first IRK, a message to the application processor indicating the second wireless communication device has been identified in a find location operation (Ledvina: Paragraph 141 describes an application processor turning on upon authentication in the context of ranging operations. Ledvina: Paragraph 101 describes an AOP being the one to perform authentication against a list of tags).
Combining Polo in view of Heo with Ledvina would require configuring the always on processor taught by Polo in view of Heo to process a BLE packet containing identification information to send a notification to the application processor upon successful IRK matching, with there being a substitution of the authentication tags used in Ledvina with the IRKs generated and described by Polo in view of Heo, which could be done by one of ordinary skill in the art. The process would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do since an application utilizing the Bluetooth circuit to share location data between devices may need indication that a device has been properly identified (Ledvina paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 8, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the apparatus of claim 7. Ledvina teaches that the message causes the application processor to wake up from a low power state (Ledvina: Paragraph 102 states that the application processor is in a sleep state to save power. Ledvina: Paragraph 141 states that the application processor is turned on when the other device is authenticated).
Regarding claim 9, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 7. Ledvina teaches the processing circuitry of the application processor further configured to instruct the Bluetooth controller to transmit a second Bluetooth advertisement to respond to the Bluetooth advertisement (Ledvina: Paragraph 80 describes that the sending device’s advertisement is part of a ranging handshake, where the receiving device will send an acknowledgement message. Ledvina: Paragraph 51 states that Bluetooth is used for communication of ranging settings).
Regarding claim 10, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 9. Polo teaches processing circuitry of the Bluetooth controller is further configured to configure transceiver circuitry to transmit the second Bluetooth advertisement (Polo: Paragraph 30 states that the BLE circuit is configured to generate BLE packets).
Regarding claim 11, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 10. Ledvina teaches the second advertisement comprises the first IRK and information relating to a ranging operation to be performed between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device (Ledvina: Paragraph 59 states that advertisements contain authorization/authentication tags. Ledvina: Paragraph 80 states that the receiving device will send a message regarding ranging settings to the sending device).
Regarding claim 12, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1. Polo teaches sending the first IRK to the Bluetooth controller (Polo: Paragraph 21 states that the generated IRK is stored in the Bluetooth circuit’s whitelist).
However, Polo does not teach that the application processor is the one to send the IRK to the controller. Heo teaches the processing circuitry of the application processor is further configured to communicate with the Bluetooth controller (Heo: Paragraph 74 describes a control port connecting the application processor to the Bluetooth communication unit).
Combining Polo with Heo would require the device taught by Polo in view of Heo to have the IRK generated by the application processor sent to the Bluetooth controller after generation. This would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the IRK is taught to be necessarily used for Bluetooth communication, meaning that if the application processor is to generate an IRK for a Bluetooth device, it must send it to the Bluetooth controller for it to use.
Regarding claim 13, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1. Polo teaches the payload of the Bluetooth advertisement encrypted based on a Bluetooth address of a wireless communication device transmitting the Bluetooth advertisement and the IRK (Polo: Paragraph 29 states that the a BLE sending device will send its IRK during Bluetooth pairing encrypted and in accordance to the 4.0 specification, which states that the Bluetooth address is used to generate encryption keys).
Regarding claim 14, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 13. Polo teaches the processing circuitry of the AOP further configured to decrypt the payload using the first IRK and a Bluetooth address of the second wireless communication device (Polo: Paragraph 29 states that the privacy logic in the first wireless device communicates over an encrypted channel with another Bluetooth device, which after identifying based on IRK deals with as stated in the Bluetooth 4.0 standard, where the standard uses Bluetooth addresses for encryption purposes).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo (US 20130259230 A1) in view of Heo (US 20140094198 A1), in further in view of Ledvina (US 20200106877 A1), which is in further view of Luo (US 20230247431 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 2, Polo teaches the processing circuitry of the Bluetooth controller further configured to filter the Bluetooth advertisement by comparing the IRK in the Bluetooth advertisement against the entries in the match table (Polo: Paragraph 21 describes a whitelist used by the communication device that lists all IRK values associated with bonded BLE peripherals. Polo: Paragraph 33 states that the privacy logic of the Bluetooth circuit will check to see if it contains the IRK of a device that sent an advertisement to it against entries in the whitelist).
However, Polo does not teach the Bluetooth circuit determining if a Bluetooth advertisement is a duplicate. Luo teaches determining whether the Bluetooth advertisement is a duplicate of a previously received Bluetooth advertisement (Luo: Paragraph 47 states that a Bluetooth receiving device will check whether a communication containing a specific IRK contains a hashed anti-tracking count (HATC) which Luo: paragraph 26 defines as a hash used to make sure that a message has not been repeated. Luo: Paragraph 89 states that in certain embodiments, HATC use is done through Bluetooth circuits).
Combining Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina with Luo would require one of ordinary skill in the art to add HATCs to Bluetooth messages, as well as using the BLE communication circuit described by Luo since it manages the HATC processing, as a result combining the functionalities of the two inventions. This would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since a drawback to conventional Bluetooth operations is the possibility of using replay attacks to detect and track devices (Luo paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 4, Polo in view of Heo, in further view of Ledvina, and further view of Luo teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 3. Luo teaches the processing circuitry of the Bluetooth controller further configured to ignore the Bluetooth advertisement when it is determined the Bluetooth advertisement is a duplicate (Luo: Paragraph 101 states that communications coming from the sending device will contain information used to derive the HATC, and if the HATC is not authenticated, the device will be ignored).
Regarding claim 5, Polo in view of Heo, in further view of Ledvina, and further view of Luo teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 3 Luo teaches the processing circuitry of the Bluetooth controller further configured to forward the Bluetooth advertisement to the AOP when it is determined the Bluetooth advertisement is not a duplicate (Luo: Paragraph 101 states that communications with peer device are permitted if the peer HATC is authenticated. Luo: Paragraph 77 states that the Bluetooth circuit formats and packetize data for transmission by BT circuits. Luo: Paragraph 68 states that a processor section in the control circuit manages HATC evaluation, with paragraph 72 stating the circuit has a processor subsystem. Luo: Paragraph 115 states that in response to HATC authentication, a connection to the other device will be established).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo (US 20130259230 A1) in view of Heo (US 20140094198 A1), further in view of Ledvina (US 20200106877 A1), which is in further view of Aumasson and Bernstein (“SipHash: a fast short-input PRF”).
Regarding claim 15, Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 13. Polo teaches encrypting the payload of the Bluetooth advertisement using a hash function (Polo: Paragraph 29 states that Bluetooth encryption is done in accordance to the Bluetooth 4.0 specification, which utilizes a hash function for generating keys for Bluetooth encryption). However, Polo does not teach a SipHash function. Aumasson teaches using SipHash as a hash function (Page 3 explains that SipHash is fast enough to be used as a hash function). The combination of Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina with Aumasson would simply mean replacing the hash function used in Bluetooth 4.0 with SipHash. The combination would have been obvious to try since there are a limited amount of hash functions that are cryptographically secure.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo (US 20130259230 A1) in view of Ledvina (US 20200106877 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Polo teaches a method comprising generating, for transmission to a wireless communication device, a first identity resolving key (IRK) that is unique to a wireless communication device (Polo: Paragraph 28 explains a BLE circuit that generates an identity resolving key (IRK) associated with a specific device).
performing Bluetooth scanning operations to receive a Bluetooth advertisement having a payload comprising an IRK and comparing the IRK to the first IRK (Polo: Paragraph 17 explains figure 2, showing the structure of the Bluetooth circuit disclosed, with it having a separate processor connected to the host/application processor of the central device. Polo: Paragraph 21 describes a whitelist stored in the BLE circuit that contains IRKs of all devices bonded with it).
However, Polo does not teach an IRK indicating permission for a device to engage in location operations with the first device. Ledvina teaches and identity key indicating the wireless communication device is allowed to perform find location operations (Ledvina: Paragraph 35 states that there are authentication and identification options in ranging requests between two devices communicating wirelessly. Ledvina: Paragraph 228 describes Bluetooth as a wireless protocol used for ranging).
One of ordinary skill in the art could combine Polo with Ledvina by modifying the method established by Polo to use an IRK as a means to authenticate devices for location operations as disclosed by Ledvina. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to establish Polo in view of Ledvina as an improvement, because as a result ranging is not performed with unknown devices (Ledvina paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 17, Polo in view of Ledvina teaches the method of claim 16. Polo teaches storing, in firmware, a match table comprising entries for all active IRKs (Polo: Paragraph 21 describes a whitelist used by the communication device that lists all IRK values associated with bonded BLE peripherals).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo (US 20130259230 A1) in view of Ledvina (US 20200106877 A1), in further view of Luo (US 20230247431 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Polo in view of Ledvina teaches the method of claim 17. Polo teaches further filtering the Bluetooth advertisement by comparing the IRK in the Bluetooth advertisement against the entries in the match table (Polo: Paragraph 21 describes a whitelist used by the communication device that lists all IRK values associated with bonded BLE peripherals. Polo: Paragraph 33 states that the privacy logic of the Bluetooth circuit will check to see if it contains the IRK of a device that sent an advertisement to it against entries in the whitelist).
However, Polo does not teach determining if a Bluetooth advertisement is a duplicate. Luo teaches a process to determine whether the Bluetooth advertisement is a duplicate of a previously received Bluetooth advertisement (Luo: Paragraph 47 states that a Bluetooth receiving device will check whether a communication containing a specific IRK contains a hashed anti-tracking count (HATC) which paragraph 26 defines as a hash used to make sure that a message has not been repeated).
Combining Polo in view of Heo and further view of Ledvina with Luo would require one of ordinary skill in the art to use the BLE communication circuit described by Luo since it manages the HATC processing, as a result combining the functionalities of the two inventions. This would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since a drawback to conventional Bluetooth operations is the possibility of using replay attacks to detect and track devices (Luo paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 19, Polo in view of Ledvina and further view of Luo the method of claim 18. Luo teaches ignoring the Bluetooth advertisement when it is determined the Bluetooth advertisement is a duplicate (Luo: Paragraph 101 states that communications coming from the sending device will contain information used to derive the HATC, and if the HATC is not authenticated, the device will be ignored).
Regarding claim 20, Polo in view of Ledvina and further view of Luo the method of claim 18, Luo teaches forwarding the Bluetooth advertisement to an always on processor when it is determined the Bluetooth advertisement is not a duplicate (Luo: Paragraph 101 states that communications with peer device are permitted if the peer HATC is authenticated. Luo: Paragraph 77 states that the Bluetooth circuit formats and packetize data for transmission by BT circuits. Luo: Paragraph 68 states that a processor section in the control circuit manages HATC evaluation, with paragraph 72 stating the circuit has a processor subsystem. Luo: Paragraph 115 states that in response to HATC authentication, a connection to the other device will be established).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These include:
Core_V4: Bluetooth specification for version 4.0
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD H RASUL whose telephone number is (571)272-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at 571-272-3880. 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.
/M.H.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2492 /RUPAL DHARIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2492