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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recitation of “determine that the AID is included in a current address table” recited in claim 11, line 5 is confusing because it does not provide any useful purpose since its result is not used by any other element/step. Similar problem exists for the same recitation recited in claim 15, line 4.
Dependent claims 12-14 and 16-20 are also rejected because of its dependency (directly or indirectly) from claims 11 and 15.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al (US 7,555,128; art cited by applicant) in view of Ho et al (US 2024/0340638).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ko teaches a baseband processor comprising memory configured to cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receive, from a higher layer, a payload for transmission in a first message to a receiver (Claim 41: "A method for providing security to a wireless communication network … generating a wireless network frame". Ko teaches generating a wireless network frame, which according to IEEE 802.11 standard, includes receiving and encapsulating the payload generated at the higher layer (col. 3, lines 3-25)); generate a header for transmission with the payload in the first message; (Claim 26: "generating a wireless network frame including a Media Access Control (MAC) header portion" and Fig. 11. Ko further teaches generating a header including the payload as depicted in Fig. 11 representing IEEE 802.11 MAC frame format.); perform a first encryption of the header to generate a first encrypted header, wherein the first encryption is according to a time interval associated with transmission of the first message; (col. 15, lines 51-52: "the entire MAC header portion 510 undergoes a first encryption method" and col. 10, lines 9-10: "The encryption security key and the XOR pattern can be arbitrarily set and managed based on time". Ko teaches performing the first header encryption, where the encryption key can be based on time, which, as commonly known in the field, may correspond to the message transmission time.); perform a second encryption of the first encrypted header to generate a second encrypted header (fig. 9 and col.13, lines 18-29: "An nth encryption algorithm 160 is applied, at the data link layer, to the subsequently encrypted MAC header portion, The resulting multi-encrypted and XORed frame 170 includes the multi-encrypted MAC header portion 172". Ko teaches performing a further, second, encryption of the first encrypted header to generate multi-encrypted header.); append the second encrypted header to the payload to generate the first message; (fig. 9 and fig. 13 and col.13, lines 24-29: "The resulting multi-encrypted and XORed frame 170 includes the multi-encrypted MAC header portion 172, the multi-encrypted and XORed, first encryption header portion 174, the multi- encrypted and XORed frame body portion 176 and the multi- encrypted and XORed CRC portion 178" and col. 4, lines 55-56: "the method may also include encrypting the body portion of the frame, as well as, performing an XOR operation on the body portion". Ko teaches appending the second encrypted header to the frame body, which contains payload that may be encrypted as well.); and encode the first message for transmission to the receiver (fig. 10 and col. 13, lines 29-30: "The multi-encrypted and XORed frame 170 is subsequently transmitted and received" and col. 13, lines 64-66: "The base band processor converts the data sequences to RF signals and the signals are transmitted via the RF module". Ko teaches communicating the frame, containing the second encrypted header and the payload, to the receiver, which includes the baseband processor encoding the data for transmission.). Ko fails to teach the second encryption is according to an attribute of the first message. However, encryption in according to an attribute of the message is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Ho, from the same field of endeavor, teaches such encryption. See [0044]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ko by employing the teachings as taught by Ho in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Ko as modified by Ho further teaches obfuscating group addressed control frames, data frames or management frames. See Ko: col. 7, lines 53-66.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Ko as modified by Ho further teaches wherein the header comprises a media access control (MAC) header. See Ko: col. 7, lines 53-66.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Ko as modified by Ho further teaches periodically changing an address included in the header. See col. 15, lines 2-59.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Ko as modified by Ho further teaches periodically changing a field included in the header. See col. 15, lines 2-59.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Ko as modified by Ho further teaches periodically changing an address included in the header while being associated with an access point (AP). See col. 15, lines 2-59.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Ko as modified by Ho further teaches periodically changing a field included in the header while being associated with an access point (AP). See col. 15, lines 2-59.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Ko as modified by Ho further teaches obfuscating individually addressed control frames, data frames or management frames. See Ko: col. 7, lines 53-66.
Claims 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al (US 7,555,128; art cited by applicant) in view of Patil et al (US 2021/0298059).
Regarding independent claim 11, Ko teaches a baseband processor comprising memory configured to cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receive, from a transmitting device via an antenna of a receiving device, a first message (fig. 9, 170); deobfuscate the first message (fig. 9, 150); decrypt a header of the first message (fig. 9, 150, 160); verify the header; and in response to a successful verification of the header, deliver a payload of the first message to a higher layer of the receiving device (fig. 9, 140). See also co. 13, line 1-41. Ko fails to teach deobfuscating to include an association identifier (AID) and determining that the AID is included in a current address table. However, decoding an association identifier (AID) in a message and determining that the AID is included in a current address table is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Patil, from the same field of endeavor, teaches such decoding of AID for a STA. See [0092] and [0107]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ko by employing the teachings as taught by Patil in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 15, the claim is a corresponding method claim and recites similar subject matter to claim 11. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 11.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Ko as modified by Patil further teaches detecting transmitter or encryption keys based on a received frame address or AID information. See Ko: col. 3, lines 26-46 and col. 13, lines 1-41.
Regarding dependent claim 13, Ko as modified by Patil further teaches wherein the AID can be obfuscated with a basic service set (BSS) specific offset that is changed between BSS specific intervals. See Patil: [0071], [0092] and [0107].
Regarding dependent claim 14, Ko as modified by Patil further teaches wherein an access point (AP) may assign a new AID by using a control frame. See Patil: [0071], [0092] and [0107].
Regarding dependent claim 16, Ko as modified by Patil further teaches wherein an access point (AP) is the receiving device. See Ko: col. 9, lines 20-56.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Ko as modified by Patil further teaches wherein an access point (AP) is the transmitting device. See Ko: col. 9, lines 20-56.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Ko as modified by Patil further teaches verify the transmitting device by integrity validating the first message. See Ko: col. 9, lines 20-56.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Ko as modified by Patil further teaches wherein the AID is changed at a configured interval, wherein the configured interval is common to both the transmitting device and the receiving device. See Patil: [0071], [0092] and [0107].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Sinn et al (US 10,826,876), Abraham et al (US 2014/0064481), Zheng et al (US 2023/0269026) and Cao et al (US 2025/0193872) are cited because they are pertinent to the method and apparatus for encryption and decryption of message. However, none of the cited references teaches or suggests the further arrangements as recited in the dependent claims 8-9 and 19.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) 272-3018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights