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 .
Manner of Making Amendments under 37 C.F.R. § 1.121
Any subsequent submission by Applicant must comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(c) and MPEP § 714(II)(C) regarding the manner of presenting amended claims. Specifically, amended claims that include text additions and/or deletions must be properly indicated.
Pursuant to MPEP § 714(II)(C), all changes to currently amended claims must be shown relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. Deleted matter ordinarily must be shown by strike-through; however, when deleting five (5) or fewer consecutive characters, deletion by double brackets may be used and, in certain circumstances, is required. In particular, where strike-through cannot be readily perceived—such as when deleting a single numeral, punctuation mark, or other short character string—double brackets must be used to clearly identify the deleted matter. For example, deletion of punctuation marks standing alone (e.g., commas, periods, semicolons, parentheses, or quotation marks) should be indicated by double brackets rather than strike-through.
Similarly, the text of any added subject matter must be presented in a manner such that the underlining is readily perceptible. Where underlining of added matter cannot be easily perceived, including, for example, the addition and/or substitution of one or more characters, punctuation marks, numerals, or word fragments, the amendment shall instead be presented by deleting the entire affected text and adding the complete replacement text with underlining. Examples include, without limitation, amendments correcting misspellings, changing a singular term to a plural term or vice versa, adding prefixes or suffixes, or modifying punctuation or numerals.
Failure to provide a compliant amendment may result in the amendment being designated for non-entry.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the UWB" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders claim 1 indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim term to read “the UWB transceiver.” Accordingly, appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0066010, hereinafter, “HENRY”) in view of US 20220256338 (hereinafter, “PARTHASARATHI”).
Regarding claim 1, HENRY discloses:
An ultra-wideband (UWB) system comprising: (UWB Device 102)
a UWB transceiver configured to transmit and receive signals over a specific frequency range; and (UWB radio transceiver 255/355/455)
a UWB processor operably connected to the UWB to process the signals, the UWB processor being configured to: (UWB baseband processor 260/360/460)
broadcast parameters associated with a first authentication value, . . . (¶ 0078: [A] target anchor placed in a high density area (e.g., an auditorium) may broadcast ranging parameters; ¶ 0126: UWB ranging parameters may include . . . a security key (e.g., STS key) to enable encryption of UWB ranging data exchanged between the mobile device and a target UWB anchor; ¶ 0083: [S]ignaling a broadcast UWB ranging instruction, as shown at 610 for FIG. 6A, including UWB ranging instruction information provided via advertisement data fields)
. . .
receive a ranging data set for each valid second authentication value from a target secure element, the ranging data set being used to authenticate a mobile device associated with the valid second authentication value for secure communication via the UWB transceiver. (¶ 0126: UWB ranging parameters may include . . . a security key (e.g., STS key) to enable encryption of UWB ranging data exchanged between the mobile device and a target UWB anchor [The Examiner finds the feature, the ranging data set being used to authenticate a mobile device associated with the valid second authentication value for secure communication via the UWB transceiver is properly considered as “intended use” which does not limit the structure and/or functionality of the UWB system, and thus does not limit the scope of the claim because the limitation at most defines a context in which the UWB operates.])
HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
the parameters being sufficient to derive the first authentication value at a plurality of mobile devices;
receive a plurality of second authentication values
from the plurality of mobile devices; and
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI discloses:
the parameters being sufficient to derive the first authentication value at a plurality of mobile devices; [The Examiner finds that this claim feature recites nonfunctional descriptive material because the derivation of the first authentication value is not required to be performed by the UWB system itself and thus has little or no patentable weight in the apparatus claim to a UWB system. Instead, the derivation of the first authentication value—if required at all—is to be performed by an unclaimed external entity, i.e., a plurality of mobile devices. As such, this claim language does not functionally change the UWB system. For purposes of compact prosecution, however, the feature is disclosed, for example, at ¶ 0042 of PARTHASARATHI which describes that phones 316 and 318 use the content of the out-of-band broadcast message 322 to derive session keys]
receive a plurality of second authentication values from the plurality of mobile devices; and (¶ 0034: A typical UWB ranging session includes one or more messages (i.e., commands) transmitted from a UWB communication node (which is also referred to as a “reader” herein) to one or more external UWB responder nodes (i.e., communication nodes which are external to the communication node), as well as one or more responses to those commands, which are transmitted back to the communication node by the responder nodes; ¶ 0048: FIG. 3 is an example in which phone1 316 sends a response 356 early in the contention period. The response includes a scrambled timestamp STS, wherein the scrambling is based on the session master key S_MK rnr followed by data, which is encoded as indicated in FIG. 3 by “ENC”. The encoded data includes two parts, as will be described in more detail hereinbelow. The first part is encoded according to the session master key S_MKrnr; the second part which includes a timestamp of the response is encoded using the response-specific session key S_RK1rnr)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HENRY’s UWB circuitry to provide response messages received from external responder nodes including encoded data, as taught by PARTHASARATHI, such that it may be possible to efficiently provide UWB ranging using contention-based ranging with multiple responders. See PARTHASARATHI, at ¶ 0003.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the system of claim 1. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the UWB processor is configured to broadcast the parameters associated with the first authentication value in a command message.
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein the UWB processor is configured to broadcast the parameters associated with the first authentication value in a command message. (¶ 0034: A typical UWB ranging session includes one or more messages (i.e., commands) transmitted from a UWB communication node (which is also referred to as a “reader” herein) to one or more external UWB responder nodes (i.e., communication nodes which are external to the communication node), as well as one or more responses to those commands)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the system of claim 2. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the UWB processor is configured to broadcast the parameters associated with the first authentication value out-of-band compared to the second authentication values from the plurality of mobile devices.
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein the UWB processor is configured to broadcast the parameters associated with the first authentication value out-of-band compared to the second authentication values from the plurality of mobile devices. (¶ 0040: [A] two-way “out-of-band” communication channel or link 236 between the controller and responder may not be required. In such embodiments, it may be sufficient that the controller or initiator transmits information to each of the further communication nodes 210, without requiring a response in that “out-of-band” communication channel: the out-of-band communication channel or link 236 in such embodiments need only be one way. In other embodiments, a two-way link may be provided by the out-of-band communication channel link 236)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the system of claim 1. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the ranging data set for each valid second authentication value includes at least a session identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein the ranging data set for each valid second authentication value includes at least a session identifier. (¶ 0041: [B]roadcast [message] 322 may further contain include an identifier of a ranging session (“Session ID”, or “DATE”))
Regarding claim 7, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the system of claim 6. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the ranging data set for each valid second authentication value further includes a UWB ranging session key.
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein the ranging data set for each valid second authentication value further includes a UWB ranging session key. (¶ 0041: [B]roadcast [message] 322 may further contain include an identifier of a ranging session (“Session ID”, or “DATE”))
Regarding claim 10, HENRY discloses:
A method (call flow 500) comprising:
broadcasting parameters associated with a first authentication value from an ultra-wideband (UWB) system of a target device, . . . (¶ 0078: [A] target anchor placed in a high density area (e.g., an auditorium) may broadcast ranging parameters; ¶ 0126: UWB ranging parameters may include . . . a security key (e.g., STS key) to enable encryption of UWB ranging data exchanged between the mobile device and a target UWB anchor; ¶ 0083: [S]ignaling a broadcast UWB ranging instruction, as shown at 610 for FIG. 6A, including UWB ranging instruction information provided via advertisement data fields)
. . .
receiving a ranging data set for each valid second authentication value from a target secure element at the UWB system, the ranging data set being used to authenticate a mobile device associated with the valid second authentication value for secure communication. (¶ 0126: UWB ranging parameters may include . . . a security key (e.g., STS key) to enable encryption of UWB ranging data exchanged between the mobile device and a target UWB anchor [The Examiner finds the feature, the ranging data set being used to authenticate a mobile device associated with the valid second authentication value for secure communication via the UWB transceiver is properly considered as “intended use” which does not limit the structure and/or functionality of the UWB system, and thus does not limit the scope of the claim because the limitation at most defines a context in which the UWB operates.])
HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
the parameters being sufficient to derive the first authentication value at a plurality of mobile devices;
receiving a plurality of second authentication values at the UWB system from the plurality of mobile devices; and
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
the parameters being sufficient to derive the first authentication value at a plurality of mobile devices; [The Examiner finds that this claim feature recites nonfunctional descriptive material because the derivation of the first authentication value is not required to be performed by the UWB system itself and thus has little or no patentable weight in the apparatus claim to a UWB system. Instead, the derivation of the first authentication value—if required at all—is to be performed by an unclaimed external entity, i.e., a plurality of mobile devices. As such, this claim language does not functionally change the UWB system. For purposes of compact prosecution, however, the feature is disclosed, for example, at ¶ 0042 of PARTHASARATHI which describes that phones 316 and 318 use the content of the out-of-band broadcast message 322 to derive session keys]
receiving a plurality of second authentication values at the UWB system from the plurality of mobile devices; and (¶ 0034: A typical UWB ranging session includes one or more messages (i.e., commands) transmitted from a UWB communication node (which is also referred to as a “reader” herein) to one or more external UWB responder nodes (i.e., communication nodes which are external to the communication node), as well as one or more responses to those commands, which are transmitted back to the communication node by the responder nodes; ¶ 0048: FIG. 3 is an example in which phone1 316 sends a response 356 early in the contention period. The response includes a scrambled timestamp STS, wherein the scrambling is based on the session master key S_MK rnr followed by data, which is encoded as indicated in FIG. 3 by “ENC”. The encoded data includes two parts, as will be described in more detail hereinbelow. The first part is encoded according to the session master key S_MKrnr; the second part which includes a timestamp of the response is encoded using the response-specific session key S_RK1rnr)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HENRY’s UWB circuitry to provide response messages received from external responder nodes including encoded data, as taught by PARTHASARATHI, such that it may be possible to efficiently provide UWB ranging using contention-based ranging with multiple responders. See PARTHASARATHI, at ¶ 0003.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 10. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein broadcasting the parameters associated with the first authentication value includes broadcasting the parameters associated with the first authentication value from the ultra-wideband (UWB) system of the target device in a command message.
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein broadcasting the parameters associated with the first authentication value includes broadcasting the parameters associated with the first authentication value from the ultra-wideband (UWB) system of the target device in a command message. (¶ 0034: A typical UWB ranging session includes one or more messages (i.e., commands) transmitted from a UWB communication node (which is also referred to as a “reader” herein) to one or more external UWB responder nodes (i.e., communication nodes which are external to the communication node), as well as one or more responses to those commands)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 11. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein broadcasting the parameters associated with the first authentication value includes broadcasting the parameters associated with the first authentication value from the ultra-wideband (UWB) system of the target device out-of-band compared to the second authentication values from the plurality of mobile devices.
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein broadcasting the parameters associated with the first authentication value includes broadcasting the parameters associated with the first authentication value from the ultra-wideband (UWB) system of the target device out-of-band compared to the second authentication values from the plurality of mobile devices. (¶ 0040: [A] two-way “out-of-band” communication channel or link 236 between the controller and responder may not be required. In such embodiments, it may be sufficient that the controller or initiator transmits information to each of the further communication nodes 210, without requiring a response in that “out-of-band” communication channel: the out-of-band communication channel or link 236 in such embodiments need only be one way. In other embodiments, a two-way link may be provided by the out-of-band communication channel link 236)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 10. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the ranging data set for each valid second authentication value includes at least a session identifier. In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein the ranging data set for each valid second authentication value includes at least a session identifier. (¶ 0041: [B]roadcast [message] 322 may further contain include an identifier of a ranging session (“Session ID”, or “DATE”))
Regarding claim 16, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 15. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the ranging data set for each valid second authentication value further includes a UWB ranging session key.
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein the ranging data set for each valid second authentication value further includes a UWB ranging session key. (¶ 0041: [B]roadcast [message] 322 may further contain include an identifier of a ranging session (“Session ID”, or “DATE”))
Regarding claim 19, HENRY discloses:
A target device (UWB anchor 115) comprising:
a secure element (UWB Anchor Device 400) to run at least one application and store data; and
an ultra-wideband (UWB) system (UWB Chipset 450) operably coupled to the secure element, the UWB system being configured to:
. . .
broadcast parameters associated with a first authentication value, . . . (¶ 0078: [A] target anchor placed in a high density area (e.g., an auditorium) may broadcast ranging parameters; ¶ 0126: UWB ranging parameters may include . . . a security key (e.g., STS key) to enable encryption of UWB ranging data exchanged between the mobile device and a target UWB anchor; ¶ 0083: [S]ignaling a broadcast UWB ranging instruction, as shown at 610 for FIG. 6A, including UWB ranging instruction information provided via advertisement data fields)
. . .
obtain a ranging data set for each valid second authentication value from the secure element, the ranging data set being used to authenticate a mobile device associated with the valid second authentication value for secure communication. (¶ 0126: UWB ranging parameters may include . . . a security key (e.g., STS key) to enable encryption of UWB ranging data exchanged between the mobile device and a target UWB anchor [The Examiner finds the feature, the ranging data set being used to authenticate a mobile device associated with the valid second authentication value for secure communication is properly considered as “intended use” which does not limit the structure and/or functionality of the UWB system, and thus does not limit the scope of the claim because the limitation at most defines a context in which the UWB operates.])
HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
transmit and receive signals over a specific frequency range;
the parameters being sufficient to derive the first authentication value at a plurality of mobile devices;
receive a plurality of second authentication values from the plurality of mobile devices; and
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
transmit and receive signals over a specific frequency range; (¶ 0002: Ultra-wideband (UWB) is a technology that uses a high signal bandwidth, in particular for transmitting digital data over a wide spectrum of frequency bands with very low power. For example, ultra-wide band technology may use the frequency spectrum of 3.1 to 10.6 GHz and may feature a high-frequency bandwidth of more than 500 MHz and very short pulse signals, resulting in high data rates)
the parameters being sufficient to derive the first authentication value at a plurality of mobile devices; [The Examiner finds that this claim feature recites nonfunctional descriptive material because the derivation of the first authentication value is not required to be performed by the UWB system itself and thus has little or no patentable weight in the apparatus claim to a UWB system. Instead, the derivation of the first authentication value—if required at all—is to be performed by an unclaimed external entity, i.e., a plurality of mobile devices. As such, this claim language does not functionally change the UWB system. For purposes of compact prosecution, however, the feature is disclosed, for example, at ¶ 0042 of PARTHASARATHI which describes that phones 316 and 318 use the content of the out-of-band broadcast message 322 to derive session keys]
receive a plurality of second authentication values from the plurality of mobile devices; and (¶ 0034: A typical UWB ranging session includes one or more messages (i.e., commands) transmitted from a UWB communication node (which is also referred to as a “reader” herein) to one or more external UWB responder nodes (i.e., communication nodes which are external to the communication node), as well as one or more responses to those commands, which are transmitted back to the communication node by the responder nodes; ¶ 0048: FIG. 3 is an example in which phone1 316 sends a response 356 early in the contention period. The response includes a scrambled timestamp STS, wherein the scrambling is based on the session master key S_MK rnr followed by data, which is encoded as indicated in FIG. 3 by “ENC”. The encoded data includes two parts, as will be described in more detail hereinbelow. The first part is encoded according to the session master key S_MKrnr; the second part which includes a timestamp of the response is encoded using the response-specific session key S_RK1rnr)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HENRY’s UWB circuitry to provide response messages received from external responder nodes including encoded data, as taught by PARTHASARATHI, such that it may be possible to efficiently provide UWB ranging using contention-based ranging with multiple responders. See PARTHASARATHI, at ¶ 0003.
Claims 3, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, and in view of US 2025/0386335 (hereinafter, “REDDY”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the system of claim 2. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the UWB processor is configured to broadcast the parameters associated with the first authentication value in a UWB scheduling control message.
In the same field of endeavor, however, REDDY teaches:
wherein the UWB processor is configured to broadcast the parameters associated with the first authentication value in a UWB scheduling control message. (¶ 0042: [P]rocessor 114 of the first ranging device 100 may transmit to the second ranging device 102 an RCM (i.e., a ranging control message) to schedule a UWB ranging session (generally referred to as a “ranging session”) between the first ranging device 100 and the second ranging device 102)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HENRY’s UWB circuitry to provide a ranging control message, as taught by REDDY, to schedule a UWB ranging session between the first ranging device and the second ranging device, such that where certain channels are experiencing constant/near constant interference, the channel hopping pattern may be established and/or modified to hop in a way that avoids that type of interference. See REDDY, at ¶ 0091.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 11. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein broadcasting the parameters associated with the first authentication value includes broadcasting the parameters associated with the first authentication value from the ultra-wideband (UWB) system of the target device in a UWB scheduling control message. (¶ 0042: [P]rocessor 114 of the first ranging device 100 may transmit to the second ranging device 102 an RCM (i.e., a ranging control message) to schedule a UWB ranging session (generally referred to as a “ranging session”) between the first ranging device 100 and the second ranging device 102)
Regarding claim 20, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the target device of claim 19. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the UWB system is configured to broadcast the parameters associated with the first authentication value in a UWB scheduling control message.
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein the UWB system is configured to broadcast the parameters associated with the first authentication value in a UWB scheduling control message. (¶ 0042: [P]rocessor 114 of the first ranging device 100 may transmit to the second ranging device 102 an RCM (i.e., a ranging control message) to schedule a UWB ranging session (generally referred to as a “ranging session”) between the first ranging device 100 and the second ranging device 102)
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, and in view of CN 202410141571 (hereinafter, “JI”) (citations are to Machine Translation NPL).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the system of claim 1. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the parameters associated with the first authentication value include at least two of a session identifier, a padding value and an epoch value.
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein the parameters associated with the first authentication value include at least two of a session identifier (¶ 0041: [B]roadcast [message] 322 may further contain include an identifier of a ranging session (“Session ID”, or “DATE”))
Also, in the same field of endeavor, JI discloses:
wherein the parameters associated with the first authentication value include . . . a padding value (P. 9: Wherein the manufacturer identification of UWB chip 103 may have a data length of 8 bytes. The data length of plaintext block B0 and plaintext block B1 may both be 16 bytes. Plaintext block B0 may be "EUI" which is bit-wise inverted. Wherein the "|" symbol represents concatenation of data. The plaintext block A1 may be "EUI fill value 5 fill value 6 fill value 7 fill value 8" for the first 4 bytes of data identified by the vendor. Wherein, the data length of each padding value is 1 byte, for example, padding value 5 may be "F1", padding value 2 may be "01", padding value 3 may be "1F", and padding value 4 may be "01")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HENRY’s UWB circuitry to provide a padding value, as taught by JI, such that a UWB key transmission method and a related device, which realize that a UWB chip of electronic equipment safely transmits URSK to the UWB chip through a central processing unit, so that the safety chip and the UWB chip can be flexibly combined without strong binding. See JI, at p. 2.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 10. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the parameters associated with the first authentication value include at least two of a session identifier, a padding value and an epoch value.
In the same field of endeavor, however, PARTHASARATHI teaches:
wherein the parameters associated with the first authentication value include at least two of a session identifier (¶ 0041: [B]roadcast [message] 322 may further contain include an identifier of a ranging session (“Session ID”, or “DATE”))
Also, in the same field of endeavor, JI discloses:
wherein the parameters associated with the first authentication value include . . . a padding value (P. 9: Wherein the manufacturer identification of UWB chip 103 may have a data length of 8 bytes. The data length of plaintext block B0 and plaintext block B1 may both be 16 bytes. Plaintext block B0 may be "EUI" which is bit-wise inverted. Wherein the "|" symbol represents concatenation of data. The plaintext block A1 may be "EUI fill value 5 fill value 6 fill value 7 fill value 8" for the first 4 bytes of data identified by the vendor. Wherein, the data length of each padding value is 1 byte, for example, padding value 5 may be "F1", padding value 2 may be "01", padding value 3 may be "1F", and padding value 4 may be "01")
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, and in view of US 2021/0211870 (hereinafter, “PERRAS”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the system of claim 1. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the second authentication values is a value formed by concatenating at least some of the parameters associated with the first authentication value from a most significant bit (MSB) to a least significant bit (LSB).
In the same field of endeavor, however, PERRAS teaches:
wherein each of the second authentication values is a value formed by concatenating at least some of the parameters associated with the first authentication value from a most significant bit (MSB) to a least significant bit (LSB). (¶ 0091: The session identifier (i.e., KD-sess ID) is created by concatenating identifier components from each peer, i.e., the most-significant byte (MSB) (i.e., most significant 8 bits) of KD-sess ID is from the initiating WTRU and the least-significant byte (LSB) (i.e., least significant 8 bits) of KD-sess ID is from the peer WTRU. Each WTRU uses its portion of the KD-sess ID (i.e., MSB or LSB) to retrieve the security context associated to the link)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HENRY’s UWB circuitry to provide concatenating identifier components from each peer, as taught by PERRAS, such that each WTRU uses its portion of the KD-sess ID (i.e., MSB or LSB) to retrieve the security context associated to the link. See PERRAS, ¶ 0091.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of HENRY and PARTHASARATHI, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 10. HENRY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the second authentication values is a value formed by concatenating at least some of the parameters associated with the first authentication value from a most significant bit (MSB) to a least significant bit (LSB).
In the same field of endeavor, however, PERRAS teaches:
wherein each of the second authentication values is a value formed by concatenating at least some of the parameters associated with the first authentication value from a most significant bit (MSB) to a least significant bit (LSB). (¶ 0091: The session identifier (i.e., KD-sess ID) is created by concatenating identifier components from each peer, i.e., the most-significant byte (MSB) (i.e., most significant 8 bits) of KD-sess ID is from the initiating WTRU and the least-significant byte (LSB) (i.e., least significant 8 bits) of KD-sess ID is from the peer WTRU. Each WTRU uses its portion of the KD-sess ID (i.e., MSB or LSB) to retrieve the security context associated to the link)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitations, wherein the UWB processor is further configured to receive a ranging data set from a particular mobile device from the plurality of mobile devices and compare the ranging data set from the particular mobile device with a corresponding ranging data set for the particular mobile device from the target secure element, in combination with the balance of the limitations recited in the independent claims are neither disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Garth D Richmond whose telephone number is (703)756-4559. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 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.
/GARTH D RICHMOND/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights