DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to initial filing on 10/29/2024.
Claim 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/29/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s submission of prior art Howry et al (US 20170324733).
Regarding claim 1, Howry discloses a method implemented by a remote wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising (UE 802, Figure 8; [066], the first 802):
sending, to a relay WTRU, information indicating a request for trustworthiness criteria associated with the relay WTRU ([0066] Both users are participating in fighting a forest fire and would like to coordinate their activities with each other using Proximity Services (e.g., P2P or group communications). The first user would like to verify that the second UE 804 has an adequate Security Posture before communications start. Thus, at 806, the first UE 802 may request the Security Posture of the second UE 804.);
receiving, from the relay WTRU, information indicating: (1) the trustworthiness criteria associated with the relay WTRU, and (2) a score associated with the trustworthiness criteria ([0066] At 808, the second UE 804 may compute a response to request (challenge), and the UE 804 may sign the response using a private key of the UE 804. The UE 804 includes its SPV certificate as part of the signed message. Wherein the trustworthiness criteria is the computed challenge included in the response);
authenticating the information indicating the trustworthiness criteria using a public key of one or more of a network entity and a network access key ([0066] At 812, the first UE 802 may verify the response using the pubic key of the second UE 804); and
establishing a unicast link with the relay WTRU on condition that the information indicating the trustworthiness criteria is authenticated, and on condition that the score associated with the trustworthiness criteria satisfies [0066] The first UE 802 may determine whether the SPV of the second UE 804 is adequate as compared to the ESPL of the first UE 802. … If each SPV is adequate, the first UE 802 and the second UE 804 may establish a secure P2P communications channel between each other. Continuing with the example above, the SPV of both the first UE 802 and the second UE 804 may have to be greater than or greater or equal to a SPV approved by the fire departments. Wherein the threshold is the expected security posture level ESPL of the first UE, i.e., the remote WTUR).
Regarding claim 2, Howry discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the relay WTRU is a first relay WTRU, the trustworthiness criteria are first trustworthiness criteria, and the score is a first score, the method further comprising:
obtaining further information indicating: (1) second trustworthiness criteria associated with a second relay WTRU and (2) a second score associated with the second trustworthiness criteria ([0066] The first UE 802 may determine whether the SPV of the second UE 804 is adequate as compared to the ESPL of the first UE 802. … If each SPV is adequate, the first UE 802 and the second UE 804 may establish a secure P2P communications channel between each other. Continuing with the example above, the SPV of both the first UE 802 and the second UE 804 may have to be greater than or greater or equal to a SPV approved by the fire departments); and
wherein the unicast link is established with the relay WTRU on condition that the first score[0066] The first UE 802 may determine whether the SPV of the second UE 804 is adequate as compared to the ESPL of the first UE 802. … If each SPV is adequate, the first UE 802 and the second UE 804 may establish a secure P2P communications channel between each other. Continuing with the example above, the SPV of both the first UE 802 and the second UE 804 may have to be greater than or greater or equal to a SPV approved by the fire departments\).
Regarding claim 3, Howry discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the further information is obtained from a storage unit of the remote WTRU ([0066] At 808, the second UE 804 may compute a response to request (challenge), and the UE 804 may sign the response using a private key of the UE 804. A POSITA would understand that in a wireless digital system that sends or receives a value is stored locally (in a local memory)).
Regarding claim 4, Howry discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein an integrity of the information indicating the trustworthiness criteria At 808, the second UE 804 may compute a response to request (challenge), and the UE 804 may sign the response using a private key of the UE 804. A POSITA would understand that in a wireless digital system that sends or receives a value is stored locally and encrypted (in a local memory)).
Regarding claim 5, Howry discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the trustworthiness criteria are verified by the network entity (Figure 9 and [0068], As shown, at 904, the first UE 802 may request that the network, in particular the PVB 902, vouches for the Security Posture (SPV) of the second UE 804. It is noted that the PVB corresponds to the posture Verifier Broker, that is, the network entity or device).
Regarding claim 6, Howry discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the unicast link is a PC5 link (([0066] The first UE 802 may determine whether the SPV of the second UE 804 is adequate as compared to the ESPL of the first UE 802. … If each SPV is adequate, the first UE 802 and the second UE 804 may establish a secure P2P communications channel between each other. Examiner submits that it is a designer’s choice to select the unicast link as PC5 link).
Regarding claim 7, Howry discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the trustworthiness criteria are associated with a period of time during which the information indicating the trustworthiness criteria is valid ([0066] At 812, the first UE 802 may verify the response using the pubic key of the second UE 804. A POSITA would understand that key or certificates have expiration periods).
Regarding claim 8, Howry discloses the method according to claim l, wherein the trustworthiness criteria are associated with a resource being accessed by the relay WTRU ([0066] At 812, the first UE 802 may verify the response using the pubic key of the second UE 804. A POSITA would understand that key or certificates have expiration periods).
Regarding claim 9, Howry discloses the method according to claim l, further comprising storing the information indicating the trustworthiness criteria ([0066] At 808, the second UE 804 may compute a response to request (challenge), and the UE 804 may sign the response using a private key of the UE 804. A POSITA would understand that in a wireless digital system that sends or receives a value is stored locally (in a local memory)).
Regarding claim 10, Howry discloses the method according to claim l, wherein the trustworthiness criteria are first trustworthiness criteria, the method further comprising:
sending, to the relay WTRU, second information indicating trustworthiness criteria of the remote WTRU, wherein the second information is integrity protected by the network entity ([0066] Furthermore, at 814, the first UE 802 may send the second UE 804 an SPV of the first UE 802. At 816, the second UE 804 may authenticate the first UE 802 by verifying the message received at 814. The second UE 804 may determine whether the SPV of the first UE 802 is adequate as compared to the ESPL of the second UE 804).
Claim 11 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Howry, Figure 8, UE 802).
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 7, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 8, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 contains subject matter similar to claim 9, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 contains subject matter similar to claim 10, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250031039 to Fu et al: Remote communication device performs an authentication procedure with a home communication network, via a relay communication device, to authenticate the remote communication device to the home communication network for a proximity-based service, ProSe.
US 20240414778 to Takeoka: Stores authentication information used for connection to a first communication system, a first eUICC that holds profile information used for connection to a first carrier network selected and contracted by a user as an access network.
US 20230336992 to Kim et al: Identifying, by the relay UE, authentication for the remote UE based on the direct communication request message; and transmitting, by the relay UE, a direct communication accept message to the remote UE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights