DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending in this 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to the prior art, claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner notes that there are two outstanding 112 rejections that need to be resolved, see below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the use of communication session with a drone, which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Examiner suggests including that the terminal is a “drone terminal” as recited in the specification at [0013] and in claim 8.
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, 2 and 7 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.
As per claim 1, in the claim limitation, “transferring a first cipher text and a first message authentication code (MAC) value identified based on a second PID identified from the second terminal and the first PID to the second terminal,” it is unclear how the MAC value can be identified based on a second PID. Also, it is unclear what “…identified from the second terminal and the first PID to the second terminal” means and how this phrase affects the second PID. Additionally, it is unclear how the first PID is dependent or interacting with the second PID and/or the second terminal. In the claim limitation, “identifying a session key to be used in the communication session with the second terminal based on the second PID, a second cipher text, a second MAC value, which are identified from the second terminal, and the first PID,” it is unclear how the second PID, second cipher text, second MAC value and the first PID can be used to “identify” the session key. Furthermore, it is unclear what “identified from the second terminal” means. Examiner suggests clearly describing the relationship between the various objects and would be open to conducting an interview to discuss language to overcome this rejection and to best reflect the novelty of the claimed invention.
As per claim 2, it is unclear what the claim limitation “a generator corresponding to the group of prime order” means. The specification at [0044] describes the generator as a number that may “show all elements in the group of prime order by raising the generator to a power”. It is not entirely clear to the Examiner how raising a number to a power can show all prime numbers in a group. Examiner suggest providing some explanatory details to clarify this particular limitation.
As per claim 7, “interlocking” is not defined in the specification and refers to Fig.1 1 as an example of interlocking. Looking at Fig. 1, it is not completely clear what “interlocking” is and how interlocking with a server is different from simply communicating with the server. Examiner suggests providing a brief clarifying phrase in the next set of amendments. For this action, “interlocking” will be interpreted to be the same as communicating over a session.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al. (CN-116321147-A) [hereinafter “Cao”].
As per claim 1, Cao teaches a session key exchange method of a first terminal, the session key exchange method comprising: determining a first pseudonym identifier (PID), of the first terminal, to be used in a communication session with a second terminal (Page 7 para. 4, determining a pseudo-identity of vehicle terminal V for communication with UAV or MEC Server); transferring the first PID to the second terminal (Page 12 para. 1, transferring pseudo-identity of vehicle terminal instead of real identity); transferring a first cipher text and a first message authentication code (MAC) value identified based on a second PID (Page 12 para. 1, using pseudo-identity of UAV to protect real identity identifier) identified from the second terminal and the first PID to the second terminal (Page 9 para. 9, transferring ciphertext and first MAC to UAV for verification); and identifying a session key to be used in the communication session with the second terminal based on the second PID (Page 6 para. 1, negotiating a session key by exchanging identifiers including pseudo-identity see Page 12 para. 1), a second cipher text (Page 10 para. 4, second cipher text), a second MAC value (Page 10 para. 4, UAV sends second MAC back to vehicle terminal), which are identified from the second terminal, and the first PID (Page 12 para. 1, exchanging with pseudo-identity of vehicle terminal and UAV).
As per claim 6, Cao teaches the session key exchange method of claim 1, further comprising transferring, after encrypting information based on the session key, the encrypted information to the second terminal (Page 9 para. 9, encrypting message with session key between terminal and UAV see Abstract).
As per claim 8, Cao teaches the session key exchange method of claim 1, wherein the first terminal corresponds to a manager terminal, and the second terminal corresponds to a drone terminal (Page 3 para. 1, vehicle terminal in communication with UAV).
As per claim 9, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 10, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Jung et al. (US PGPUB No. 2005/0084114) [hereinafter “Jung”].
As per claim 2, Cao teaches the session key exchange method of claim 1.
Cao does not explicitly teach before the determining of the first PID: identifying a public parameter including a group of prime order, a generator corresponding to the group of prime order, a public key, a first hash function, and a second hash function from a server; transferring a first identifier (ID) of the first terminal to the server; and identifying a first secret key and a first verification key corresponding to the first ID. Jung teaches before the determining of the first PID: identifying a public parameter including a group of prime order ([0020], group of prime numbers), a generator corresponding to the group of prime order ([0020], generation source of the finite field of prime order), a public key ([0020], public key), a first hash function ([0059], using a hash function to verify message integrity between two parties), and a second hash function from a server ([0059], using a hash function to verify message integrity between two parties); transferring a first identifier (ID) of the first terminal to the server ([0010], ID information is transmitted with the message between two parties setting up a session); and identifying a first secret key and a first verification key corresponding to the first ID ([0071], generating a secret key and public key, used for verification, corresponding to ID of party A).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cao with the teachings of Jung, before the determining of the first PID: identifying a public parameter including a group of prime order, a generator corresponding to the group of prime order, a public key, a first hash function, and a second hash function from a server; transferring a first identifier (ID) of the first terminal to the server; and identifying a first secret key and a first verification key corresponding to the first ID, to verify the identity of a entity before issuing a temporary pseudonym identifier.
As per claim 7, Cao teaches the session key exchange method of claim 1.
Cao does not explicitly teach identifying information, which is encrypted based on the session key, from the second terminal which identifies the session key by inputting, to a second hash function: the first PID which is identified from the first terminal; a value corresponding to a first secret key identified from the first terminal; the second PID of the second terminal, which is identified through interlocking with a server; and a value corresponding to a second secret key of the second terminal. Jung teaches identifying information, which is encrypted based on the session key, from the second terminal (Col. 1 lines 11-13, session key encrypts data transmitted between two parties in a session including transmitted session data like identifiers see Col. 6 lines 12-14) which identifies the session key by inputting, to a second hash function: the first PID which is identified from the first terminal (Col. 10 lines 38-40, identifying session information using a hash table related to the identity of the related entity); a value corresponding to a first secret key identified from the first terminal (Col. 6 line 67, master secret used to generated keys which is shared between communicating parties see Col. 12 lines 34-36); the second PID of the second terminal, which is identified through interlocking with a server (Col. 5 lines 66-67, pseudo-unique identifier used as session ID which sometimes can be generated by and received from the server); and a value corresponding to a second secret key of the second terminal (Col. 12 lines 34-36, shared secret used to generate keys used for communication).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cao with the teachings of Jung, identifying information, which is encrypted based on the session key, from the second terminal which identifies the session key by inputting, to a second hash function: the first PID which is identified from the first terminal; a value corresponding to a first secret key identified from the first terminal; the second PID of the second terminal, which is identified through interlocking with a server; and a value corresponding to a second secret key of the second terminal, to verify the identity of a entity before issuing a temporary pseudonym identifier.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Sharifi Mehr (US Patent No. 10,951,652) [hereinafter “Mehr”].
As per claim 3, Cao teaches the session key exchange method of claim 1.
Cao does not explicitly teach wherein the transferring of the first cipher text and the first MAC value comprises: identifying an encryption key and a MAC key corresponding to the communication session by inputting the first PID and the second PID to a second hash function; and identifying the first cipher text and the first MAC value based on the encryption key and the MAC key. Mehr teaches wherein the transferring of the first cipher text and the first MAC value comprises: identifying an encryption key and a MAC key corresponding to the communication session by inputting the first PID and the second PID to a second hash function (Col. 10 lines 37-45, using hash table based on identity of server and client, i.e. pseudo-unique identity see Col. 5 lines 66-67, to index session information including key information see Col. 6 lines 8-17); and identifying the first cipher text and the first MAC value based on the encryption key and the MAC key (Col. 6 lines 8-14, MAC key and encryption key used to verify and read messages).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cao with the teachings of Mehr, wherein the transferring of the first cipher text and the first MAC value comprises: identifying an encryption key and a MAC key corresponding to the communication session by inputting the first PID and the second PID to a second hash function; and identifying the first cipher text and the first MAC value based on the encryption key and the MAC key, to track and manage multiple sessions that can be useful to implement system wide policy rules.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jiang et al. (CN-118473663-A), Zhou et al. (CN-114390474-A), Sharma et al. (US PGPUB No. 2021/0185042), Kruger et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0177561), Yoon et al. (US PGPUB No. 2014/0122888), Jin et al. ("A heterogeneous authenticated key establishment protocol for Internet of drones," 2021 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Civil Aviation Safety and Information Technology (ICCASIT), Changsha, China, 2021, pp. 291-300, doi: 10.1109/ICCASIT53235.2021.9633657), Jeong et al. ("Key Agreement Between User and Drone With Forward Unlinkability in Internet of Drones," in IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 17134-17144, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3150035), Bhattarai et al. ("A Lightweight and Anonymous Application-Aware Authentication and Key Agreement Protocol for the Internet of Drones," in IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 19790-19803, 1 June1, 2024, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2024.3367799) and Bansal et al. ("Achieving Secure and Reliable UAV Authentication: A Shamir's Secret Sharing Based Approach," in IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 3598-3610, July-Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1109/TNSE.2024.3381599) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including establishing a session key between a terminal and a drone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 November 25, 2025