DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments ("REMARKS") filed 02 June 2026 have been fully considered, and they are persuasive as to the previous grounds of rejection.
Claims 1-30 were amended. Claims 1, 11, 21, and 30 are independent. Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Re: Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments, indicated on pp.13-16 of the REMARKS, in response to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 with respect to Sierra et al., US 2020/0336303 A1 (hereinafter, “Sierra ‘303”) and Saur et al., US 2019/0230618 A1 (hereinafter, “Saur ‘618”) have been fully considered, and they are persuasive as to the previous grounds of rejection.
Applicant's amendments introduced limitations that were not present in the claims previously under examination, and have therefore necessitated new grounds of rejection. As discussed below, the limitations added by amendment are disclosed by references already of record.
The Examiner further notes that a number of the dependent claims were substantively amended without accompanying argument. Those amendments have been fully considered, and the limitations added thereby are addressed in Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103 below.
Applicant argues, on pp.14-16 of the REMARKS, that Sierra ‘303 and Saur ‘618 fail to disclose obtaining first security material “from a network entity”, as amended in the independent claims. Specifically, Applicant states that the processors 401 and 403 of Sierra ‘303 perform a secure key exchange to exchange key material used to generate a session key, and that the session key is thereafter combined with session parameters to create a seed for input to a random number generator. Applicant asserts that the key material of Sierra ‘303 is obtained from the same device with which it communicates using Sierra’s secure key and therefore fails to disclose obtaining first security material from “a network entity” and transmitting a ranging signal based on at least a first portion of that material.
The Applicant’s argument is persuasive.
The Examiner agrees that Sierra ‘303, considered alone, does not disclose obtaining security material from “a network entity”. Sierra ‘303 discloses generation of the session key by the secure processors on the mobile device and the ranging module equipped device, using either a shared secret or a public key associated with the other device (Sierra ‘303, ¶¶38-40, 51), and describes the device certificate (dev. cert 130A) and the ranging radio certificate (RR cert 130B) as stored within device memory without identifying the source from which those certificates were provisioned (Sierra ‘303, ¶33).
With respect to the independent claims, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. A new ground of rejection has been asserted over Stojanovski et al., US 2018/0234827 A1 (hereinafter, “Stojanovski ‘827”). Stojanovski ‘827 is already of record and relied upon in the prior Office Action.
Stojanovski ‘827 discloses that the user equipment is configured with a ProSe Discovery Group Key (PDGK) for a given Discovery Group ID by the ProSe Key Management Function, and that the ProSe Key Management Function further provides the user equipment with the supported encryption and Message Integrity Code algorithms for each Discovery Group based upon a local policy (Stojanovski ‘827, ¶28). The ProSe Key Management Function is an entity distinct from both of the communicating user equipment devices. The PDGK is security material, from which a Discovery Key is derived using a Key Derivation Function executed at the user equipment (Stojanovski ‘827, ¶29). Stojanovski ‘827 is therefore relied upon in the new grounds of rejection as teaching the obtaining, from “a network entity”, of first security material associated with a ranging cryptographic key. The Examiner notes that Stojanovski ‘827 was applied against dependent claims 6-10, 16-20, and 26-29 in the prior Office Action.
With respect to the further limitation that the ranging signal be transmitted “based on at least a first portion of the first security material”, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s amendment did not alter the substance of this limitation. Sierra ‘303 discloses transmitting, from a first device to a second device, a ciphered code sequence comprising a secure preamble generated by a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator from the derived ranging key (dRK 522) and an anti-replay counter value (Sierra ‘303, ¶¶41, 48, 53, 58, 65). Sierra ‘303 further discloses that the session key is the key material defining the secure ranging communication session, and that all operations within a session are derived from that session key (Sierra ‘303, ¶40). The root key material from which the ranging signal is generated is the network-provisioned security material taught by Stojanovski ‘827, such that the transmitted ranging signal is based upon at least a first portion of the first security material obtained from the network entity. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 and Stojanovski ‘827 before them, would have recognized that the source of the root key material may be varied without altering the manner in which the ranging waveform is derived from it.
Saur ‘618, on the other hand is relied upon for its disclosure of transmitting a positioning reference signal from a supporting user equipment to a target user equipment using a sidelink transmission within a cellular network environment (Saur '618, ¶¶22, 25, 44, 64, 71). Saur ‘618 is not relied upon for the network provisioning of security material. That limitation is disclosed by Stojanovski ‘827 (Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶28-29).
See Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103 below for further details.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“… means for obtaining …” in claim 21.
“… means for transmitting …” in claims 21-24, 26, and 28-29.
“… means for receiving …” in claims 23 and 25-26.
“… means for generating …” in claim 23.
“… means for encrypting …” in claim 23.
“… means for verifying …” in claim 26.
“… means for determining …” in claim 28.
“… means for selecting …” in claim 29.
“… means for cryptographically signing …” in claim 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 15-18, 21-23, 25-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sierra et al., US 2020/0336303 A1 (hereinafter, “Sierra ‘303”), in view of Saur et al., US 2019/0230618 A1 (hereinafter, “Saur ‘618”), and further in view of Stojanovski et al., US 2018/0234827 A1 (hereinafter, “Stojanovski ‘827”).
As per claim 1: Sierra ‘303 discloses:
A first wireless communication device (a first device 102, such as a smartphone, tablet computer, or wearable device, capable of performing secure ranging with a second device 103 [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶25-26; Figs.1A-1B]) comprising:
transceiver (a ranging radio (RR 108) and associated antenna 109 of device 102, where the ranging radio includes an RF transceiver 427 for transmitting and receiving signals [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶26, 29, 50, 53; Figs.1A, 4]); memory (a memory 129 on device 121, where the memory stores cryptographic values or parameters, such as a device certificate (dev. cert 130A) and a ranging radio certificate (RR cert 130B) [Sierra ‘303, ¶33; Fig.1B]); and
processor, communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory, configured to: (a secure processor (SP 107) of device 102, communicatively coupled to ranging radio (RR 108) through a secure interface 405, and coupled to memory 129, where the secure processor performs cryptographic operations for secure ranging [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶26, 28-29, 33, 50; Figs.1A-1B, 4])
obtain, (obtaining, at device 102, security material comprising a ranging session key, where the session key is key material defining a secure ranging communication session, and where a derived ranging key (dRK 522) is derived from the session key via a key derivation function (KDF) cascade; and further obtaining cryptographic certificates, including a device certificate (dev. cert 130A) and a ranging radio certificate (RR cert 130B), stored in memory 129 for use in cryptographic operations to authenticate or secure communications between devices [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶33, 39-40, 51, 58-59, 62; Figs.1B, 4-5]), and
transmit, via the transceiver, to a second wireless communication device, (transmitting, from device 102 to a second device 103, a ciphered code sequence comprising a secure preamble, where the secure preamble is generated using a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator (CSPRNG) from the derived ranging key (dRK 522) and an anti-replay counter value, and where the dRK is derived from the ranging session key via the KDF cascade [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶41, 44, 48, 53, 58, 65; Figs.3A-3B, 4-5]).
As stated above, while Sierra ‘303 discloses transmitting secure waveforms, such as ciphered code sequences and secure preambles, between devices during ultra-wideband (UWB) ranging operations, Sierra ‘303 does not explicitly disclose the limitations “… obtain, from a network entity, first security material … transmit, via the transceiver, to a second wireless communication device, a ranging signal …”, where the ranging signal is a positioning reference signal transmitted from a first wireless communication device to a second wireless communication device via a sidelink transmission in a cellular network context, as recited in claim 1.
Saur ‘618, however, discloses:
… obtain, first security material associated with a ranging cryptographic key, one or more cryptographic certificates, or a combination thereof; and transmit, via the transceiver, to a second wireless communication device, a ranging signal based on at least a first portion of the first security material (transmitting, via a transceiver 613 of a supporting user equipment (S-UE), to a target user equipment (T-UE), a supporting positioning reference signal (S-PRS) via sidelink transmission, where the sidelink transmission is a device-to-device transmission between the S-UE and the T-UE in a cellular network environment, such as LTE, NR, or 5G [Saur ‘618, ¶¶2, 22, 25, 44, 64, 71; Figs.1-2, 6]) …
Sierra ‘303 and Saur ‘618 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of wireless ranging and positioning between devices. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 and Saur ‘618 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 to include the teachings of Saur ‘618, namely to implement the secure ranging signal transmission of Sierra ‘303 in the context of a cellular sidelink positioning framework, as disclosed in Saur ‘618, where a supporting user equipment (S-UE) transmits a positioning reference signal (S-PRS) to a target user equipment (T-UE) via sidelink transmission, such that the transmitted ranging signal is a positioning reference signal generated based on the security material of Sierra ‘303. A motivation for doing so would be to improve the positional accuracy of a target user equipment in a cellular network by supplementing base station positioning reference signals with additional sidelink-based positioning reference signals from supporting user equipment (see Saur ‘618, ¶¶2, 22, 25, 37).
As stated above, Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618 does not explicitly disclose the limitation “… obtain, from a network entity, first security material associated with a ranging cryptographic key, one or more cryptographic certificates, or a combination thereof …”.
Stojanovski ‘827, however, discloses:
… obtain, from a network entity, first security material associated with a ranging cryptographic key, one or more cryptographic certificates, or a combination thereof (the first user equipment (UE 105) is configured with a ProSe Discovery Group Key (PDGK) for a given Discovery Group ID by the ProSe Key Management Function, where the ProSe Key Management Function further provides the UE with supported encryption and Message Integrity Code algorithms for each Discovery Group based on a local policy, and where the UE may be configured with one or more Discovery Group IDs [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶28]; and where a Discovery Key is thereafter calculated at the UE using a specified Key Derivation Function (KDF) having the PDGK as a primary input [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶20, 29]; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ProSe Key Management Function, which is separate from the first user equipment (UE 105) and the second user equipment (UE 125) and which provisions cryptographic key material to the user equipment, is a network entity) …
Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of secure wireless communication between devices. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) to include the teachings of Stojanovski ‘827, namely to implement a network-assisted key provisioning process, as disclosed in Stojanovski ‘827, where the security material from which the ranging cryptographic key of Sierra ‘303 is derived is provisioned to the first wireless communication device by a network entity, such as the ProSe Key Management Function, in place of the direct key exchange between the communicating devices of Sierra ‘303. A motivation for doing so would be to enable scalable and secure key distribution for proximity-based ranging services by leveraging a network-based key management function to provision base key material to devices, while allowing each device to locally derive session-specific keys, thereby reducing the signaling overhead required for direct key exchange between devices (see Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶25, 28-29, 51).
As per claim 2: Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 discloses all limitations of claim 1, as stated above, from which claim 2 is dependent upon. Furthermore, Sierra ‘303 discloses:
wherein the first security material comprises the ranging cryptographic key that is a symmetric cryptographic key (the security material comprises a derived ranging key (dRK 522), where the dRK is a symmetric cryptographic key derived from a message session key (mSK 517) via a key derivation function (KDF) cascade, and where the mSK is derived from a session key using key derivation functions based on AES-CMAC, a symmetric cipher-based message authentication code [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶58-59, 61-62; Fig.5]),
wherein, to transmit the ranging signal based on at least the first portion of the first security material, the processor is configured to: modify a (generating a modified waveform, such as a secure preamble, based on the derived ranging key (dRK 522) and an anti-replay counter value using a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator (CSPRNG), where the secure preamble is an unpredictable signal derived from the ranging key material [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶41, 48, 58, 65; Figs.3B, 5]); and
transmit the modified (transmitting the generated secure preamble, as part of a ciphered code sequence, from device 102 to a second device 103 [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶41, 44, 53, 65; Figs.3A-3B, 4]).
As stated above, while Sierra ‘303 discloses generating a modified ranging waveform based on the ranging cryptographic key, Sierra ‘303 does not explicitly disclose the limitations “… modify a positioning reference signal based on a base positioning reference signal … transmit the modified positioning reference signal …”, as recited in claim 2.
Saur ‘618, however, discloses:
… modify a positioning reference signal based on a base positioning reference signal and the ranging cryptographic key; and transmit the modified positioning reference signal (the supporting positioning reference signal (S-PRS) transmitted by the supporting user equipment (S-UE) via sidelink may be the same as the PRS transmitted by the base station, and a modified or enhanced PRS signal may be defined according to an NR standard for 5G systems, where the S-PRS may be based on such a modified or enhanced PRS signal [Saur ‘618, ¶¶50, 59-60]) …
Sierra ‘303 and Saur ‘618 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of wireless ranging and positioning between devices. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 and Saur ‘618 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 to include the teachings of Saur ‘618, namely to implement the key-based ranging signal modification of Sierra ‘303 in the context of a base positioning reference signal, as disclosed in Saur ‘618, such that the S-PRS transmitted by the S-UE is a modified version of a base PRS that has been cryptographically modified using the ranging cryptographic key. A motivation for doing so would be to maintain compatibility with existing positioning reference signal frameworks, in which the supporting positioning reference signal may be based upon a base positioning reference signal defined by the applicable standard (see Saur ‘618, ¶¶50, 59).
As per claim 3: Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 discloses all limitations of claim 1, as stated above, from which claim 3 is dependent upon. Furthermore, Sierra ‘303 discloses:
wherein the first security material comprises a first cryptographically-signed certificate, wherein the first cryptographically-signed certificate comprising a first asymmetric cryptographic key, (each device stores certificates, such as a device certificate (dev. cert 130A) and a ranging radio certificate (RR cert 130B), which can be used in cryptographic operations to authenticate or encrypt communications within and between the devices [Sierra ‘303, ¶33; Figs.1A-1B]; and where the cryptographic engines within the devices implement asymmetric cryptographic algorithms including Rivest Shamir Adleman (RSA) and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶73, 78]; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a certificate used in cryptographic authentication operations and associated with asymmetric cryptographic algorithms such as RSA or ECC is a cryptographically-signed certificate comprising an asymmetric cryptographic key) wherein the processor is further configured to:
transmit, via the transceiver to the second wireless communication device, the first cryptographically-signed certificate; and receive, via the transceiver from the second wireless communication device, a second cryptographically-signed certificate comprising a second asymmetric cryptographic key (during mutual authentication, the devices exchange device identifiers, keys, certificates, or other information that enables mutual authentication between the devices over an established communication link [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶39-40]);
wherein, to transmit the ranging signal, the processor is configured to: generate a symmetric cryptographic key based on the first asymmetric cryptographic key and the second asymmetric cryptographic key (the session key generated during mutual authentication is the key material defining a secure ranging communication session, where secure processors in each device can gain knowledge of a public key associated with the other device to generate the session key [Sierra ‘303, ¶40], and where the derived ranging key (dRK 522) is derived from the session key via a key derivation cascade [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶58-59, 62; Fig.5]);
encrypt a unicast ranging signal based on the generated symmetric cryptographic key; and transmit the ranging signal comprising the encrypted unicast ranging signal (the derived ranging key (dRK 522) is used to encrypt data transmitted during the ranging session [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶47, 58-59, 62; Fig.5]; the encrypted ranging session is conducted exclusively between two mutually authenticated paired devices, namely the mobile device and the ranging module equipped device [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶36, 38-40, 47; Figs.2-3]; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an encrypted ranging signal transmitted between two specific mutually authenticated devices in a point-to-point ranging session is an encrypted unicast ranging signal).
As per claim 5: Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 discloses all limitations of claim 1, as stated above, from which claim 5 is dependent upon. Furthermore, Sierra ‘303 discloses:
wherein, to obtain the first security material, the processor is configured to receive, via the transceiver, the ranging cryptographic key (the secure processor (SP 107) of device 102 is configured to receive, via a Bluetooth radio 125 or other wireless communication channel, key material exchanged during a secure key exchange, where the key material is used to derive or generate ranging keys, including a session key from which a derived ranging key (dRK) is obtained [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶31-32, 34, 39-40, 51; Figs.1B, 2, 4]).
Note: As stated in claim 1, in the combination of Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827, the received security material is provisioned to the first wireless communication device by a network entity, namely the ProSe Key Management Function of Stojanovski ‘827 [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶28-29].
As per claim 6: Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 discloses all limitations of claim 1, as stated above, from which claim 6 is dependent upon. Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 6. Stojanovski ‘827, however, discloses:
wherein the first security material comprises a second portion associated with a group of user equipment (UE), wherein the processor is further configured to: (the first user equipment (UE 105) is configured with a ProSe Discovery Group Key (PDGK) for a given Discovery Group ID by the ProSe Key Management Function, and may be configured with one or more Discovery Group IDs, where a Discovery Key derived from the PDGK is specific to a Discovery Group (i.e., a group of user equipment) [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶28-29])
transmit, via the transceiver to the second wireless communication device, a discovery message based on at least the second portion of the first security material (the first user equipment (UE 105) transmits, via a transmitter 120, to a second user equipment (UE 125), a discovery message in a device-to-device (D2D) discovery channel, where the discovery message includes a Discovery Group ID sent as clear text and a message integrity code (MIC), and where the MIC is computed using the Discovery Key derived from the ProSe Discovery Group Key (PDGK) via a Key Derivation Function (KDF), such that the discovery message is based on the group-specific cryptographic key material [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶17, 20-21, 27-29, 65; Figs.1-3]);
receive a discovery response based on the transmitted discovery message (in the Model B, or Discoverer/Discoveree, paradigm, UE-A in the role of discoverer transmits a Solicitation message and the responding user equipment replies with a discovery message of type Response, where the Response message carries the Discovery Group ID and a MIC value computed using one of the supported MIC algorithms, and where the Response message may be linked to the specific Solicitation message by a transaction identifier [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶64-65, 74, 82; Fig.3]); and
verify that the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device are members of the group of UE based on the received discovery response and the second portion associated with the group of UE (upon reception of a Group Member Discovery message, a receiving user equipment checks whether it is concerned by the message by inspecting the Discovery Group ID parameter and then verifies the MIC value of the payload, where the Discovery Group ID serves as a pointer to the Discovery Key and where a successful verification test permits the receiving user equipment to proceed with the discovery exchange [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶62, 65, 74]; the Discovery Key so used is derived from the ProSe Discovery Group Key (PDGK) that is specific to a Discovery Group [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶28-29]; and an Announcing (Model A) or Discoverer/Discoveree (Model B) user equipment uses the Discovery Key in specified cryptographic algorithms to protect the parameters of the discovery message, such that both the Solicitation message and the Response message are protected using the group-specific key material [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶27, 65, 74]; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a MIC value computed using a Discovery Key derived from a group-specific PDGK may be validated only by a device in possession of the same group-specific key material, such that successful validation of the MIC of the received Response message by the first user equipment confirms that both the first user equipment and the second user equipment possess the key material of the Discovery Group and are therefore members of that group of user equipment).
Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of secure wireless communication between devices. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) to include the teachings of Stojanovski ‘827, namely to implement a device-to-device group member discovery phase, as disclosed in Stojanovski ‘827, prior to the secure ranging signal transmission of Sierra ‘303, where the first wireless communication device transmits a discovery message protected by group-specific key material, receives a discovery response protected by that same group-specific key material, and verifies the message integrity code of the received response, thereby confirming that both devices possess the group key material and are members of the group. A motivation for doing so would be to enable the first wireless communication device to securely discover and authenticate neighboring devices prior to initiating ranging operations, thereby ensuring that ranging sessions are established only with verified and trusted devices belonging to the same group and mitigating the risk of impersonation attacks in proximity-based services (see Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶14, 25, 49-51, 94).
As per claim 7: Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 6, as stated above, from which claim 7 is dependent upon. Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 7. Stojanovski ‘827, however, discloses:
wherein the first portion of the first security material comprises the second portion of the first security material, (the ProSe Discovery Group Key (PDGK) used to derive the Discovery Key for protecting discovery messages may be the same as the ProSe Group Key (PGK) used for one-to-many ProSe Direct Communication, such that the same root key material is used across both discovery and direct communication functions between the user equipment, and where the Discovery Group ID and the ProSe Group Layer-2 ID are used interchangeably [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶28-29, 51-52])
wherein the network entity is distinct from the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device (the ProSe Key Management Function configures the user equipment with the PDGK for a given Discovery Group ID and provides the user equipment with the supported encryption and Message Integrity Code algorithms for each Discovery Group based on a local policy, where the ProSe Key Management Function is separate from the first user equipment (UE 105) and the second user equipment (UE 125) that participate in the discovery exchange [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶17, 20, 28; Figs.1-2]).
Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of secure wireless communication between devices. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) to include the teachings of Stojanovski ‘827, namely to implement the secure discovery and ranging processes of Sierra ‘303 such that the same root key material provisioned by the network entity is used to derive both the key protecting the discovery message and the key protecting the ranging signal, as disclosed in Stojanovski ‘827, where the ProSe Discovery Group Key used for discovery may be the same as the ProSe Group Key used for direct communication. A motivation for doing so would be to reduce the complexity of key management between devices by deriving keys for both discovery and ranging operations from a common root key provisioned by a key management function, thereby minimizing the number of key exchanges required and streamlining the establishment of secure proximity-based services (see Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶28, 51).
As per claim 8: Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 discloses all limitations of claim 1, as stated above, from which claim 8 is dependent upon. Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 8. Stojanovski ‘827, however, discloses:
wherein the first security material comprises the ranging cryptographic key, wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, via the transceiver to the second wireless communication device, an indication for the second wireless communication device to contact the network entity for the ranging cryptographic key (the first user equipment (UE 105) transmits, via a transmitter 120, to a second user equipment (UE 125), a discovery message in a device-to-device (D2D) discovery channel, where the discovery message includes a Discovery Group ID that is a pointer to a corresponding Discovery Key in the discovery group attributes [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶17, 20, 27; Figs.1-2], and where each user equipment is configured with the ProSe Discovery Group Key (PDGK) for a given Discovery Group ID by the ProSe Key Management Function [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶28], such that the Discovery Group ID transmitted in the discovery message serves as an indication for the second user equipment to obtain the corresponding PDGK from the ProSe Key Management Function for that Discovery Group); and
determine the ranging cryptographic key based on a base cryptographic key stored at the first wireless communication device, wherein, to obtain the first security material, the processor is configured to: obtain, from the network entity, the base cryptographic key (the Discovery Key is calculated using a specified Key Derivation Function (KDF), where a primary input to the KDF is the PDGK that is stored at the user equipment, and where one or all of the Group Member Identity, Discovery Key Identity, and Discovery Group ID are additional inputs to the KDF [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶28-29]; and where the PDGK (i.e., the base cryptographic key) is itself obtained by the user equipment from the ProSe Key Management Function, which configures the user equipment with the PDGK for a given Discovery Group ID [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶28]).
Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of secure wireless communication between devices. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) to include the teachings of Stojanovski ‘827, namely to implement a network-assisted key provisioning process, as disclosed in Stojanovski ‘827, where the first wireless communication device transmits a discovery message including a Discovery Group ID to the second wireless communication device, the Discovery Group ID serving as a pointer indicating the corresponding key material, where the base cryptographic key is obtained by the first wireless communication device from the network entity, and where the ranging cryptographic key is locally derived at the first wireless communication device from that base cryptographic key using a Key Derivation Function, as disclosed in Stojanovski ‘827. A motivation for doing so would be to enable scalable and secure key distribution for proximity-based ranging services by leveraging a network-based key management function to provision base key material to devices, while allowing each device to locally derive session-specific keys, thereby reducing the signaling overhead required for direct key exchange between devices (see Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶25, 28-29, 51).
As per claims 11-13 and 15-18: Claims 11-13 and 15-18 define a positioning session signaling method that recites substantially similar subject matter as the first wireless communication device of claims 1-3 and 5-8, respectively. Specifically, claims 11-13 and 15-18 are directed to a positioning session signaling method comprising obtaining, from a network entity, first security material and transmitting a ranging signal, where the method may be performed by the first wireless communication device of claims 1-3 and 5-8, respectively. Thus, the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8 is equally applicable to claims 11-13 and 15-18, respectively.
As per claims 21-23 and 25-28: Claims 21-23 and 25-28 define a first wireless communication device comprising means for performing functions that recites substantially similar subject matter as the first wireless communication device of claims 1-3 and 5-8, respectively. Specifically, claims 21-23 and 25-28 are directed to a first wireless communication device comprising means for obtaining, from a network entity, first security material and means for transmitting a ranging signal, corresponding to the first wireless communication device of claims 1-3 and 5-8, respectively. Thus, the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8 is equally applicable to claims 21-23 and 25-28, respectively.
As per claim 30: Claim 30 defines a non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium that recites substantially similar subject matter as the first wireless communication device of claim 1. Specifically, claim 30 is directed to a non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium comprising processor-readable instructions configured to cause a processor of a first wireless communication device to obtain, from a network entity, first security material and transmit a ranging signal, corresponding to the first wireless communication device of claim 1. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 30.
Claims 4, 9-10, 14, 19-20, 24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sierra ‘303, in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827, and further in view of Bellur et al., US 2009/0235071 A1 (hereinafter, “Bellur ‘071”).
As per claim 4: Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 3, as stated above, from which claim 4 is dependent upon. Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 4. Bellur ‘071, however, discloses:
wherein, to transmit the first cryptographically-signed certificate, the processor is configured to: transmit the first cryptographically-signed certificate based on a present location of the first wireless communication device being within a validity region associated with the first cryptographically-signed certificate (each certificate Cert(obu, X) includes a geographic region X as a certificate field (i.e., a validity region associated with the certificate); the OBU 12 receives location information from a GPS receiver 14 to determine its current geographic position GPS(obu) (i.e., a present location of the first wireless communication device); OBUs on vehicles are constrained to append signed messages using the certificate corresponding to their current geographic region, such that the OBU signs the message with its private key and appends the signed message with a certificate corresponding to only its current geographic region (i.e., transmit the cryptographically-signed certificate based on the present location being within the validity region associated with the certificate) [Bellur ‘071, ¶¶7, 22, 24, 27, 30, 33, 39; Figs.1-4]).
Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618 and Stojanovski ‘827) and Bellur ‘071 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of secure wireless communication between devices using a public key infrastructure. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618 and Stojanovski ‘827) and Bellur ‘071 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618 and Stojanovski ‘827) to include the teachings of Bellur ‘071, namely to configure the certificate exchange process of Sierra ‘303 such that the first wireless communication device transmits its cryptographically-signed certificate based on a determination that its present location is within a geographic validity region associated with the certificate, as disclosed in Bellur ‘071. A motivation for doing so would be to reduce the complexity of managing the public key infrastructure by confining certificate validity to geographic regions, thereby reducing the size of certificate revocation lists that need to be processed and stored at each device and enabling different administrative policies for different regions (see Bellur ‘071, ¶¶13-14, 21-22, 27-28).
As per claim 9: Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 discloses all limitations of claim 1, as stated above, from which claim 9 is dependent upon. Furthermore, Sierra ‘303 discloses:
wherein the first security material comprises a plurality of cryptographically-signed certificates, wherein at least one cryptographically-signed certificate of the plurality of cryptographically-signed certificates comprises a public cryptographic key of the first wireless communication device cryptographically signed by an entity separate from the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, (each device 121, 122 stores a plurality of certificates, such as a device certificate (dev. cert 130A) and a ranging radio certificate (RR cert 130B), where devices with multiple ranging radios may each have a separate certificate; the certificates are used in cryptographic operations to authenticate or encrypt communications between the devices, and the cryptographic engines implement asymmetric cryptographic algorithms such as RSA and ECC, and therefore the certificates inherently contain public cryptographic keys; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a certificate used in asymmetric cryptographic authentication (RSA/ECC) is a public key signed by an issuing certificate authority (CA), where the CA is an entity separate from both the first and second communicating devices [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶33, 39-40, 73, 78; Figs.1B, 7]) wherein the processor is further configured to:
select the at least one cryptographically-signed certificate of the plurality of cryptographically-signed certificates (the first device 121 transmits, to the second device 122, a message comprising at least one of the plurality of certificates during mutual authentication, where the Bluetooth link is used to exchange device identifiers, keys, certificates, or other information that enables mutual authentication between the devices [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶33, 35, 39; Figs.1B, 2]).
As stated above, Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 does not explicitly disclose the limitations “… select the at least one cryptographically-signed certificate … based on a certificate selection policy; cryptographically sign a discovery message based on the selected at least one cryptographically-signed certificate … transmit … the cryptographically signed discovery message …”, as recited in claim 9.
Stojanovski ‘827, however, discloses:
… select the at least one cryptographically-signed certificate … ; cryptographically sign a discovery message based on the selected at least one cryptographically-signed certificate … transmit … the cryptographically signed discovery message (the first user equipment (UE 105) transmits a discovery message to the second user equipment (UE 125) via a D2D discovery channel, where the discovery message includes a message integrity code (MIC) computed using a UE-specific Discovery Key over the message fields, and where the MIC cryptographically protects the discovery message (i.e., “cryptographically signed by the first wireless communication device”); and in the unaffiliated scenario, UE 105 presents a proof-of-identity in the format of a digital signature or digital certificate during mutual authentication over the ProSe/D2D communication channel [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶17, 20-21, 27-29, 48-52, 54, 86-87; Figs.1-2, 4]) …
Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of secure wireless communication between devices. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) to include the teachings of Stojanovski ‘827, namely to implement the certificate exchange process of Sierra ‘303 to include a discovery message that is cryptographically signed by the transmitting device using a message integrity code, and that is transmitted to the second wireless communication device over a device-to-device discovery channel, as disclosed in Stojanovski ‘827. A motivation for doing so would be to enable secure discovery between devices that may not share prior security associations, by allowing a transmitting device to assert its identity and cryptographically protect discovery messages, thereby facilitating efficient and secure device-to-device discovery in proximity-based communication scenarios (see Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶14, 28, 48-50).
As stated above, Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827 does not explicitly disclose the limitation “… select the at least one cryptographically-signed certificate of the plurality of cryptographically-signed certificates based on a certificate selection policy …”.
Bellur ‘071, however, discloses:
… select the at least one cryptographically-signed certificate of the plurality of cryptographically-signed certificates based on a certificate selection policy (an OBU is assigned multiple certificates by the certifying authority, one certificate corresponding to its current geographic region and one for each of the neighboring regions, where each certificate Cert(obu, X) is associated with a geographic region X; the OBU maintains a map of the segmentation of the entire country into geographic regions and, using GPS information, keeps track of the geographic region it is currently in; and OBUs on vehicles are constrained to append signed messages using the certificate corresponding to their current geographic region (i.e., a policy governing which of the plurality of certificates is selected for a given transmission) [Bellur ‘071, ¶¶7, 24-25, 27, 30, 33, 37, 39; Figs.1-4]) …
Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618 and Stojanovski ‘827) and Bellur ‘071 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of secure wireless communication between devices using a public key infrastructure. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618 and Stojanovski ‘827) and Bellur ‘071 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618 and Stojanovski ‘827) to include the teachings of Bellur ‘071, namely to configure the first wireless communication device, which stores a plurality of cryptographically-signed certificates, to select one of those certificates in accordance with a governing policy prior to signing and transmitting the discovery message, as disclosed in Bellur ‘071, where a device holding multiple certificates is constrained to use the certificate corresponding to its current geographic region. A motivation for doing so would be to reduce the complexity of managing the public key infrastructure by confining certificate validity to defined regions and requiring each device to select the applicable certificate accordingly, thereby reducing the size of certificate revocation lists that need to be processed and stored at each device and enabling different administrative policies for different regions (see Bellur ‘071, ¶¶13-14, 21-22, 27-28).
As per claim 10: Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618, and further in view of Stojanovski ‘827, and further in view of Bellur ‘071 discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 9, as stated above, from which claim 10 is dependent upon. Furthermore, Sierra ‘303 discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to: negotiate the ranging cryptographic key with the second wireless communication device during a (the secure processors 401, 403, through a setup process 402, perform a secure key exchange to exchange key material that is used to generate a session key (i.e., negotiate the ranging cryptographic key), where the session key is generated by the secure processors on the mobile device and the ranging module equipped device using a shared secret or a public key associated with the other device [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶38-40, 51; Figs.2, 4]); and
modify a (the secure preambles 540 are generated using a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator (CSPRNG 536) from the anti-replay counter 531, salted hash 514, and dRK 522 (i.e., the ranging signal is based on the ranging cryptographic key (dRK) and a freshness parameter (anti-replay counter)), where the anti-replay counter value 531 is used as input to generate the secure preambles 540, and where the anti-replay counter value is periodically incremented [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶41, 58-59, 62-63, 65; Fig.5]),
wherein the freshness parameter comprises a timer, a counter, a system frame number, a slot number, a symbol number, or any combination of two or more thereof (the anti-replay counter value 531 is a counter that is periodically incremented during timeslots in which transmission or receipt of a type 1 frame is expected (i.e., the freshness parameter comprises a counter) [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶41, 58; Fig.5]), wherein, to transmit the ranging signal, the processor is configured to:
transmit the ranging signal comprising the modified (transmitting the generated secure preamble, as part of a ciphered code sequence, from device 102 to a second device 103 [Sierra ‘303, ¶¶41, 44, 53, 65; Figs.3A-3B, 4]).
As stated above, Sierra ‘303 does not explicitly disclose the limitations “… negotiate the ranging cryptographic key with the second wireless communication device during a group formation … modify a positioning reference signal based on a base positioning reference signal … transmit the ranging signal comprising the modified positioning reference signal …”, as recited in claim 10.
Saur ‘618, however, discloses:
… negotiate the ranging cryptographic key with the second wireless communication device during a … modify a positioning reference signal based on a base positioning reference signal, the ranging cryptographic key, a freshness parameter, or a combination of two or more thereof … transmit the ranging signal comprising the modified positioning reference signal (the supporting positioning reference signal (S-PRS) transmitted by the supporting user equipment (S-UE) via sidelink may be the same as the PRS transmitted by the base station, and a modified or enhanced PRS signal may be defined according to an NR standard for 5G systems, where the S-PRS may be based on a modified or enhanced PRS signal [Saur ‘618, ¶¶50, 59-60]) …
Sierra ‘303 and Saur ‘618 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of wireless ranging and positioning between devices. For the reasons stated in claim 2, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 and Saur ‘618 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 to include the teachings of Saur ‘618.
As stated above, Sierra ‘303 in view of Saur ‘618 does not explicitly disclose the limitation “… negotiate the ranging cryptographic key with the second wireless communication device during a group formation …”.
Stojanovski ‘827, however, discloses:
… negotiate the ranging cryptographic key with the second wireless communication device during a group formation (the user equipment is configured with a ProSe Discovery Group Key (PDGK) for a given Discovery Group ID by the ProSe Key Management Function, where the Discovery Key is derived from the PDGK using a KDF, and where the user equipment may be configured with one or more Discovery Group IDs (i.e., key provisioning during group formation); additionally, in the unaffiliated scenario, UE-C triggers mutual authentication with UE-A, where the two user equipment establish a security association and exchange their UE-specific Discovery Keys (i.e., negotiate the cryptographic key with the second device during formation of a security group) [Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶13, 28-29, 50-51, 86-87; Figs.1, 4]) …
Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of secure wireless communication between devices. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) and Stojanovski ‘827 before them, to modify the method in Sierra ‘303 (modified by Saur ‘618) to include the teachings of Stojanovski ‘827, namely to implement the key exchange process of Sierra ‘303 within a group formation context, as disclosed in Stojanovski ‘827, where the key negotiation between devices is performed as part of configuring user equipment within a ProSe Discovery Group and establishing a security association between the devices. A motivation for doing so would be to enable devices to securely establish shared cryptographic keys as part of a structured group formation process, thereby allowing multiple devices to participate in secure proximity-based communications using group-specific credentials provisioned by a key management function (see Stojanovski ‘827, ¶¶13-14, 28-29, 50-51).
As per claims 14, 19, and 20: Claims 14, 19, and 20 define a positioning session signaling method that recites substantially similar subject matter as the first wireless communication device of claims 4, 9, and 10, respectively. Specifically, claims 14, 19, and 20 are directed to a positioning session signaling method comprising obtaining, from a network entity, first security material and transmitting a ranging signal, where the method may be performed by the first wireless communication device of claims 4, 9, and 10, respectively. Thus, the rejection of claims 4, 9, and 10 is equally applicable to claims 14, 19, and 20, respectively.
As per claims 24 and 29: Claims 24 and 29 define a first wireless communication device comprising means for performing functions that recites substantially similar subject matter as the first wireless communication device of claims 4 and 9, respectively. Specifically, claims 24 and 29 are directed to a first wireless communication device comprising means for obtaining, from a network entity, first security material and means for transmitting a ranging signal, corresponding to the first wireless communication device of claims 4 and 9, respectively. Thus, the rejection of claims 4 and 9 is equally applicable to claims 24 and 29, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al., US 20200322805 A1: a base-station-location server 264 provides protection against a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) spoofing attack or a cellular-network spoofing attack by auditing processed locations 504 of base stations 120 within a cellular network.
Benson et al., US 20170357523 A1: provide a method for a trusted (or originator) device to modify the security state of a target device (e.g., unlocking the device) based on a securing ranging operation (e.g., determining a distance, proximity, etc.). The method of some embodiments exchanges messages as a part of a ranging operation.
Hauck et al., US 20190116619 A1: use a secure processing system to deliver one or more ranging keys to a ranging radio on a device, and the ranging radio can derive locally at the system ranging codes based on the ranging keys. A deterministic random number generator can derive the ranging codes using the ranging key.
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 ALAN L KONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm EST.
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, JUNG (JAY) KIM can be reached on (571)272-3804. 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.
/ALAN L KONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2494
/KAVEH ABRISHAMKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights