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 .
DETAILED ACTION
No IDS has been submitted by the applicant.
The specification and drawings have been accepted by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLCMAN (US 2016/0057614) in view of Chen (US 20230353365).
Referring to claim 13, HOLCMAN discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a transmitting entity (FIG. 1, “user equipment (UE) 102”, Par. 19, “Examples of UEs 102 include a cellular phone, a smart phone, a session initiation protocol (SIP) phone, a laptop, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a satellite radio, a global positioning system, …, mobile station, a subscriber station, a mobile unit, a subscriber unit, a wireless unit, a remote unit … a mobile client, a client”. Par. 4, “A user may provide the service station with information (e.g., mobile device identification information to identify the mobile device) about the mobile device. Based on the information about the mobile device, the service station may provide various features with regard to the mobile device”, note that the UE is equivalent to the transmitting entity and the UE transmits to a base station UE information), the method comprising:
sending, to a receiving entity, a physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID) for the transmitting entity (FIG. 6, step 606, “receive … RF signature”, FIG.7 and Par. 36, “The UE may communicate identification information of the UE and/or other information (e.g., a radio-frequency (RF) signature, transmission quality information of the UE, etc.) to the base station”. Par. 46 and 55, “At 606, the base station receives at least one of an RF signature or transmission quality information of the UE”. Note that the UE (equivalent to transmitting entity) transmits radio frequency (RF) signature to the base station. The radio frequency (RF) signature of the UE is equivalent to physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID) for the transmitting entity, as described in applicant’s description paragraph 155 which states “the term physical layer identity matrix, or PHY ID, refers to a set of one or more RF signatures, where the number and selection of RF signatures are sufficient to uniquely identify a device”, thus the at least one RF signature of the UE identifying the UE physical attributes reads on the limitation, physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID) for the transmitting entity).
HOLCMAN is not relied on for disclosing encrypting a ranging message to produce an encrypted ranging message; and sending, to the receiving entity, the encrypted ranging message.
In an analogous art, Chen discloses encrypting a ranging message to produce an encrypted ranging message; and sending, to the receiving entity, the encrypted ranging message (see Par. 37, “Ranging messages (which may be encrypted) are exchanged between the mobile devices and multiple access devices”, “the mobile device can transmit a ranging message at an assigned timeslot”, note that the Ranging messages are encrypted and exchanged between a mobile device (equivalent to transmitting entity) and an access device (equivalent to receiving entity), thus, the ranging message is encrypted to produce an encrypted ranging message and then the encrypted ranging message is transmitted by the transmitting entity).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of HOLCMAN by incorporating the teachings of Chen so that the ranging message is protected from cyber-attacks, for the purpose of a secure communication system. Further, this is an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLCMAN (US2016/0057614) in view of Chen (US 20230353365) and further in view of Baek (US 2010/0257364).
Referring to claim 16, the combination of HOLCMAN/Chen discloses the method of claim 13.
The combination is not relied on for the limitation, wherein encrypting the ranging message comprises encrypting the ranging message using an advanced encryption standard (AES) key or an AES key and the PHY ID.
In an analogous art, Baek discloses the concept of encrypting the ranging message comprises encrypting the ranging message using an advanced encryption standard (AES) key or an AES key and the PHY ID (Par. 41 and 76, “base station 120 encrypts the handover ranging response message using an Advanced Encryption Standard CTR mode”, note that the base station encrypt a message using Advanced Encryption Standard CTR mode. Further, the advanced Encryption Standard (AES) CTR mode is a version of advanced Encryption Standard (AES)).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the above combination by incorporating the teachings of Baek so that the ranging message is protected by tested and advanced encrypting scheme and thus providing a better and securer communication system. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLCMAN (US2016/0057614) in view of Chen (US 20230353365) and further in view of GAO (US 2021/0392497).
Referring to claim 17, the combination of HOLCMAN/Chen discloses the method of claim method of claim 13.
The above combination is not relied on for disclosing wherein the PHY ID comprises information characterizing a transmitter of the transmitting entity, the information comprising at least one of: an I/Q imbalance, a gain imbalance, a phase imbalance, a carrier frequency offset (CFO), a sampling frequency offset (SFO), a phase noise, a spur frequency response, an analog filter response, a digital filter response, an amplitude modulation (AM) response, a pulse modulation (PM) response, a transient response, or a combination thereof.
In an analogous art, GAO discloses wherein the PHY ID comprises information characterizing a transmitter of the transmitting entity, the information comprising at least one of: an I/Q imbalance, a gain imbalance, a phase imbalance, a carrier frequency offset (CFO), a sampling frequency offset (SFO), a phase noise, a spur frequency response, an analog filter response, a digital filter response, an amplitude modulation (AM) response, a pulse modulation (PM) response, a transient response, or a combination thereof (Par. 15, “The method also includes determining, at a receiver, a carrier frequency offset (CFO) estimate for a client device, receiving a packet with an RF signature value marked as from the client device, decoding the RF signature value to determine an encoded CFO for the client device”. Note that based on a broad interpretation of the claim using alternative language “at least one of”, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the alternatives, in this case “a carrier frequency offset (CFO)”. Here, the base station is the receiving entity and receives an encoded RF signature and decodes it to determine the carrier frequency offset (CFO), which was embedded in the RF signature, thus, CFO information characterizing the RF signature. Also note that RF signature is equivalent to the PHY ID, as noted above in the rejection of claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of GAO so that the RF signature would provide standard characterizing information for identification so the device would be identified precisely based on unique characterizing data. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLCMAN (US2016/0057614) in view of Chen (US 20230353365) and further in view of Veettil (US 2023/0269693).
Referring to claim 18, the combination of HOLCMAN/Chen discloses the method of claim method of claim 13.
The above combination is not relied on for the limitation, updating the PHY ID periodically or in response to a triggering event.
In an analogous art, Veettil discloses updating the PHY ID periodically or in response to a triggering event (Par. 51, “The server can use information from the user capable device and/or monitoring stations to update stored RF signatures as appropriate. In some implementations, updates can happen if there is a variance in the RF signatures greater than a defined threshold. In some implementations, updates can happen if there is a variance in the RF signatures greater than a defined threshold and the variance happens over a defined period of time”, note due to alternative claim language, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the alternatives, in this case “in response to a triggering event” where “if there is a variance in the RF signatures greater than a defined threshold” reads on it).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Veettil so that the RF signature would be updated because the RF signature include physical layer characterization which can change over time, thus for the purpose of using an updated RF signature and providing updated physical characterization that would identify the device. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLCMAN (US2016/0057614) in view of Chen (US 20230353365) and further in view of Rowitch (US 2015/0341894).
Referring to claim 19, the combination of HOLCMAN/Chen discloses the method of claim method of claim 18.
The combination is not relied on for the limitation, further comprising sending, to the receiving entity, the updated PHY ID.
In an analogous art, Rowitch discloses sending, to the receiving entity, the updated PHY ID (Par. 36, “The location server 180 can also be configured to receive updated reference RF signature information from the mobile device 120 where the mobile device 120 has determined that one or more of the candidate wireless transmitters”, note that the updated reference RF signature is equivalent to updated PHY ID as established in the rejection claim 13 above).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Rowitch so that the updated RF signature would provide the most recent physical characterizations of the device and thus, providing precise identification of the device by the receiver. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 20 are allowed.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/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.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1 and 20:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “calculating a second physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID) for the transmitting entity based on the encrypted ranging message; authenticating the encrypted ranging message based on a comparison of the first physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID) and the second physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID); and upon determining that the encrypted ranging message is authentic, decrypting the encrypted ranging message to produce a decrypted ranging message and processing the decrypted ranging message”, along with the other limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
While the prior art does disclose the features of receiving, from a transmitting entity, a first physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID) for the transmitting entity (HOLCMAN, US2016/0057614, FIG. 6, step 606, “receive … RF signature”, FIG.7 and Par. 36, “The UE may communicate identification information of the UE and/or other information (e.g., a radio-frequency (RF) signature, transmission quality information of the UE, etc.) to the base station”. Par. 46 and 55, “At 606, the base station receives at least one of an RF signature or transmission quality information of the UE”. Note that the UE (equivalent to transmitting entity) transmits radio frequency (RF) signature to the base station. The radio frequency (RF) signature of the UE is equivalent to physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID) for the transmitting entity, as described in applicant’s description paragraph 155 which states “the term physical layer identity matrix, or PHY ID, refers to a set of one or more RF signatures, where the number and selection of RF signatures are sufficient to uniquely identify a device”, thus the at least one RF signature of the UE identifying the UE physical attributes reads on the limitation, physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID) for the transmitting entity ) and
receiving, from the transmitting entity, an encrypted ranging message (see Chen, US 20230353365, Par. 37, “Ranging messages (which may be encrypted) are exchanged between the mobile devices and multiple access devices”, “the mobile device can transmit a ranging message at an assigned timeslot”, note that the Ranging messages are encrypted and exchanged between a mobile device (equivalent to transmitting entity) and an access device (equivalent to receiving entity), thus, the ranging message is encrypted to produce an encrypted ranging message and then the encrypted ranging message is transmitted by the transmitting entity), the prior does not disclose the additional features of “calculating a second physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID) for the transmitting entity based on the encrypted ranging message; authenticating the encrypted ranging message based on a comparison of the first physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID) and the second physical layer identity matrix (PHY ID); and upon determining that the encrypted ranging message is authentic, decrypting the encrypted ranging message to produce a decrypted ranging message and processing the decrypted ranging message”.
Regarding claims 2-12:
Claim 2-12 are dependent upon allowable claim 1, thus, they are allowable for being dependent upon an allowable claim.
Regarding claims 14:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein sending the PHY ID for the transmitting entity comprises: sending, to the receiving entity, a first encryption key; encrypting the PHY ID using the first encryption key to produce an encrypted PHY ID; and sending, to the receiving entity, the encrypted PHY ID”, along with the other limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is dependent upon allowable claim 14, thus, it is allowable for being dependent upon an allowable claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED A CASCA whose telephone number is (571)272-7918. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 to 5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/FRED A CASCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights