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 .
Response to Arguments
On pg. 8, applicant argues with respect to the Claim Objection raised in the previous office action mailed 05/18/2026, as follows:
“In this Office Action, the Examiner asserts that there is unclear expression "the authenticating, based on the first sequence, the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received, so as to obtain the authentication result comprises" in claim 19; and there is unclear expression "wherein the method further comprises" in claim 20. In response to the above objections, the Applicant has amended the expression "the authenticating, based on the first sequence, the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received, so as to obtain the authentication result comprises" in claim 19 to the expression "wherein the first device further performs", and thus, amended claim 19 is clear; At the same time, the Applicant has amended the expression "wherein the method further comprises" to the expression "wherein the first device further performs", and thus, amended claim 20 is clear.”
Examiner is persuaded by applicant’s argument and hereby withdraws the objection of claims 19-20.
On pg. 8-9, applicant argues with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) raised in the previous office action mailed 05/18/2026, as follows:
“A. In this Office Action, the Examiner asserts that claims 1, 9 and 18 are not supported by the specification. Specifically, claims 1, 9 and 18 recite broad, generic functional limitations at an upper concept level, such as "authentication". For example, claims 1 and 18 recite
"authenticating, by the first device based on a first sequence, the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received, so as to obtain an authentication result", and claim 9 recites "the first information is used for a first device to perform authentication to obtain an authentication result". According to the present drafting, these claims broadly define any manner of authenticating the first information based on the first sequence. However, the specification merely discloses the following authentication manners: whether a similarity between the first sequence and the first information satisfies a preset condition, and whether a first numerical value calculated based on the first sequence and the first information is within a preset threshold range.In response to the above objection A, the Applicant has added the limitation "wherein the authentication result is determined based on whether a similarity between the first sequence and the first information satisfies a preset condition, and whether the similarity satisfies the preset condition is determined based on whether a first numerical value calculated from the first sequence and the first information is within a preset threshold range" to claim 1. Therefore, amended claim 1 explicitly defines the specific authentication method as recited in the specification, and therefore amended claim 1 is supported by the specification.”
Examiner is persuaded by applicant’s argument and hereby withdraws the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 18 to claim the species of authenticating to be: “wherein the authentication result is determined based on whether a similarity between the first sequence and the first information satisfies a preset condition, and whether the similarity satisfies the preset condition is determined based on whether a first numerical value calculated from the first sequence and the first information is within a preset threshold range”.
On pg. 9-10, applicant argues with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) raised in the previous office action mailed 05/18/2026, as follows:
“Specification recites the following:[0112] The first key is a key preset on the second device side. Preferably, the first key is the same as the aforementioned second key. Exemplarily, the first key may be unchanged. Exemplarily, the first key may be a key obtained based on a keystream generator; it should be understood that if the second key is a key obtained based on the keystream generator, the first key is also a key obtained by the keystream generator, that is, the first device and the second device generate keys, respectively. In this case, it is necessary to ensure that the keys generated by the first device and the second device in an interaction are the same. For example, the first device generates a second key for the first time based on the keystream generator, and generates a first pilot based on the second key and sends the first pilot; accordingly, when the second device receives the first pilot, the second device generates the first key for the first time based on the keystream generator. Since in this interaction, the first device and the second device both generate keys for the first time, the second key and the first key should theoretically be the same. As can be seen, the present application recites that the key may be "unchanged" or generated by the keystream generator, both of which are key management manners well known to those skilled in the art. When the first device and the second device respectively generate keys, it is necessary to ensure that the keys generated by both devices in one interaction are the same. Thus, the "key" in the present application is not an arbitrarily broad value, but rather a cryptographic value shared between the communicating parties, and its specific form conforms to the conventional concept of a symmetric key in cryptography. Therefore, the term "key" in amended claim 1 has a definite meaning, and those skilled in the art can clearly understand its bounds. Further, the term "key" in amended claims 9, 18 and remaining claims also has a definite meaning. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to withdraw the above objections.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue that the “key obtained based on the keystream generator, the first key is also a key obtained by the keystream generator” and that it is “a cryptographic value shared between the communicating parties, and its specific form conforms to the conventional concept of a symmetric key in cryptography”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “key obtained based on the keystream generator, the first key is also a key obtained by the keystream generator” and that key is “a cryptographic value shared between the communicating parties, and its specific form conforms to the conventional concept of a symmetric key in cryptography”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
If applicant wants to amend the claims to further define the term key to ensure it ties to a cryptographic key that is generated using a keystream generator, the office will reconsider the rejection.
On pg. 11, applicant argues with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) raised in the previous office action mailed 05/18/2026, as follows:
“In response to the above objections B.2, B.3, B.6, the Applicant has amended the term "a preset condition" in claims 2, 3, 19 and 20 to the term "the preset condition". Therefore, the above objections have been overcome.”
Examiner is persuaded by applicant’s argument and hereby withdraws the rejection of claim 2, 3, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant amended claims 2, 3, 19, and 20 by amending “a preset condition” to “the preset condition”. However, claims 2, 3, 19, and 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in light of their dependence on independent claim 1 and 19.
On pg. 11, applicant argues with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 8-10, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 raised in the previous office action mailed 05/18/2026, as follows:
“First, since claims 5-7 do not involve the above-mentioned "abstract idea", therefore, after claims 5 and 6, which do not involve the "abstract idea", are merged into claim 1, amended claim
1 also does not involve the "abstract idea". Second, amended claim 1 defines that: the first device generates a third sequence based on a second key and sends it as a first pilot; after receiving the first pilot, the second device performs channel estimation using a second sequence generated based on a first key to obtain a channel estimate value, and then generates first information in combination with the second sequence and sends the first information via a downlink signal; and the first device authenticates the received first information using a first sequence generated based on the second key. In this way, using the private first pilot generated and the downlink signal received by the first device to perform hypothesis testing, and security thereof comes from the confidentiality of the pilot. Although the attacker may also receive the downlink signal sent from the legitimate base station, the downlink signal is masked by the channel between the base station and the attacker. Since the third sequence in the first pilot is generated with the second key, which is private, so the attacker cannot estimate the channel estimate value between the legitimate base station and the attacker. At the same time, since the channel is random, even if the attacker infinitely improves the computing power, it is impossible to crack the first information carried in the downlink signal received from the base station. Therefore, the solution may avoid computational attacks. Therefore, the technical solution of amended claim 1 is neither a mathematical concept nor a mental process, and it solves the technical problem of how to avoid computational attacks and achieves the above-mentioned technical effects; therefore, amended claim 1 does not fall within the category of an "abstract idea." Finally, claims 4 and 10 have been cancelled. Based on the same reasons as above, claims 9 and 18 also do not fall within the category of an "abstract idea." Furthermore, claims 2-3, 8, 13-17, and 19-20 also do not fall within the category of an "abstract idea."
Examiner is persuaded by applicant’s argument and hereby withdraws the rejection of claim 1-4, 8-10, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 18 by incorporating the subject matter of claims 5-7 into the independent claims. Claims 5-7 were not previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because claims 5-7 support the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application by requiring specific measurements to protect against computational attacks.
On pg. 13-14, applicant argues with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 raised in the previous office action mailed 05/18/2026, as follows:
“It is respectfully submitted that Batra fails to disclose or teach or suggest at least the following limitation of amended claim 1:
"wherein the first information is generated by the second device based on a channel estimate value and the second sequence; and the channel estimate value is obtained by the second device performing channel estimation on the first pilot that is received based on the second sequence."
With respect to the above-mentioned limitation, Batra discloses the following:
A secure training sequence (STS) is included in wireless packets communicated between electronic devices to assist: with accurate channel estimation and wireless ranging. (Column 1, lines 54-56)
In some embodiments, the second electronic device derives channel estimates from each STS segment of an STS and compares the channel estimates to each other for consistency and to improve channel estimate accuracy. (Column 2, lines 22-25)
In some embodiments, the second electronic device derives channel estimates from each STS segment of an STS and compares the channel estimates to each other for consistency and to improve channel estimate accuracy in the presence of noise and/or interferers. (Column 4, lines 8-12)
As can be seen from above disclosure, Batra discloses that the second electronic device derives channel estimate values from each STS segment of the STS and compares these channel estimate values with each other for consistency and to improve the accuracy of channel estimation. It can be seen that Batra merely discloses that the second electronic device obtains channel estimate values based on the STS and uses the channel estimate values to improve the accuracy of channel estimation. However, Batra does not disclose how the second electronic device specifically obtains the channel estimate values based on the STS, for example, whether other sequences are used to perform channel estimation on the STS to obtain the channel estimate values. Therefore, Batra does not disclose what is defined in the above limitation, i.e., "the first information is generated by the second device based on a channel estimate value and the second sequence; and the channel estimate value is obtained by the second device performing channel estimation on the first pilot that is received based on the second sequence".
Moreover, Batra only discloses using the channel estimate values to improve the accuracy of channel estimation, and does not disclose that the second electronic device generates another signal based on the obtained channel estimate values and other sequences. Therefore, from this point of view, Batra also does not disclose what is defined in the above limitation, i.e., "the first information is generated by the second device based on a channel estimate value and the second sequence.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of recent amendments. The examiner agrees that Batra fails to disclose how the second electronic device specifically obtains the channel estimate values based on the STS. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the term “key” in claim 1 does not reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claim. Claim 1 recites that “the first information is generated by a second device based on a first key” and that “the first sequence is generated based on a second key,” but the claim does not make clear what constitutes a “key” in the claimed invention. In particular, the claim uses “key” in a manner broader than its ordinary cryptographic meaning, yet the specification does not clearly redefine the term. A person of ordinary skill in the art would ordinarily understand a “key” to mean a cryptographic value, such as an encryption/decryption key or other cryptographic secret used in a defined cryptographic operation. Here, however, the claim appears to use “key” to encompass a more general value, seed, or parameter used to generate a sequence or other information for authentication processing. The specification does not clearly redefine “key” to put one of ordinary skill in the art on notice that applicant intended such a broader or different meaning. Therefore, the scope of the term “key” is unclear.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “key” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean a value, seed, or parameter used to generate a sequence or authentication-related information, while the accepted meaning is a cryptographic key, such as an encryption/decryption key or similar cryptographic secret used in a defined cryptographic operation. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 2-8 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and therefore inherit this indefiniteness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the term “key” in claim 9 does not reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claim for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 9 recites that “the first information is generated by the second device based on a first key,” but it is unclear what constitutes the recited “key.” The specification does not clearly redefine the term if applicant intends a meaning different from its ordinary cryptographic meaning.
Claims 10-17 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 9 and therefore inherit this indefiniteness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the term “key” in claim 18 does not reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claim for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 18 recites that “the first information is generated by a second device based on a first key” and that “the first sequence is generated based on a second key,” but it is unclear what constitutes the recited “key.” The specification does not clearly redefine the term if applicant intends a meaning different from its ordinary cryptographic meaning.
Claims 19-20 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 18 and therefore inherit this indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 1-3, 7, 9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARAS [US 9161214 B2] in view of LIU [US 2023/031,9557 A1]
Regarding claim 1,
Baras discloses:
An authentication method, comprising: receiving, by a first device, a downlink signal;
As a tagged signal is created and transmitted from sender/transmitter 12 to aware receiver 14 through wireless communication channel 16, and the receiver receives and analyzes the transmitted tagged signal. See Baras, [4:21- 6:30]. (The receiver receiving the transmitted tagged signal, which matches receiving by a first device a downlink signal).
wherein the downlink signal is used to carry first information, and the first information is generated by a second device based on a first key;
The authentication information (tag signal) is sent concurrently with data (message signal). The sender/transmitter 12 sends the receiver 14 a proof of authentication, e.g., an authentication tag, with each message. A tag generator generates an authentication tag signal t by using a tag generating function, the secret key k, and the message signal to be transmitted. The tag t.sub.i reflects knowledge of the secret key shared between the sender/transmitter 12 and the aware receiver 14.” See Baras, [6:30- 5:5- 6:34 & Abstract]. (The transmitted signal carries the authentication information, and that the authentication tag signal is generated by the sender/transmitter using the secret key k which matches the downlink signal carrying first information generated by a second device based on a first key.)
and authenticating, by the first device based on a first sequence, the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received, so as to obtain an authentication result; wherein the first sequence is generated based on a second key;
The received communication signal is processed at the receiver to determine whether the tag signal is present in the received communication signal and to establish the authenticity of the received communication signal if the tag is found. The receiver generates an estimated tag based on the estimated message signal and the secret key k known to the receiver. The aware receiver 14 receives and analyzes the received communication signal {circumflex over (x)} to make a decision on the authenticity of the signal (sender) in the decision block 36 of FIG. 1, and if the authenticity signal (sender) is valid, the message recovery is performed in the message recovery block 38 of FIG. 1. The decision of authenticity for the i.sup.th block δ.sub.i is decided according to 0 δi = {0 τi≤τi0 / 1 τi≥τi0 ((Eq.26).” See Baras, [4:23- 4:35- 10:24- 11:49]. (The receiver generates an estimated tag and uses it to determine whether the tag signal is present and to establish authenticity, which matches authenticating by the first device based on a first sequence, the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received so as to obtain an authentication result.)
wherein the authentication result is determined based on whether a similarity between the first sequence and the first information satisfies a preset condition, and whether the similarity satisfies the preset condition is determined based on whether a first numerical value calculated from the first sequence and the first information is within a preset threshold range;
A threshold test is performed using the hypotheses. H.sub.0: {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i is not present in r.sub.i (Eq. 22). H.sub.1: {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i is present in r.sub.i (Eq. 23)
(66) The test statistic τ.sub.i is obtained by match filtering the residual r.sub.i with the estimated tag {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i in the matched filter 78. τi|H1=tiHri (Eq.24). The decision of authenticity for the i.sup.th block δ.sub.i is decided according to, 0δi={0τi≤τi01τi≥τi0(Eq.26). The threshold τ.sub.0 of this test is determined for a false alarm probability α according to the distribution of (τ.sub.i|H.sub.0) τi0=argminτΦ(τ/σvi)≥1-α(Eq.27).”); See Baras, [11:16-35; 11:49-61].
(Baras determines the similarity by match filtering the received residual τi with the locally generated estimated tag t^i. The resulting numerical statistic τi is compared with the preset threshold τi0 to determine the authentication result.)
However, Baras does not disclose the following limitations that are taught by Liu:
and wherein the first information is generated by the second device based on a second sequence, and the second sequence is generated based on the first key;
In a possible implementation, the first information further includes a second sent encrypted reference signal, and the second sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by using the pilot key and a second reference signal. The second sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by encrypting the second reference signal by using the pilot key. The second received encrypted reference information is included in the first information. See Liu, [¶¶0020, 0037, 0051].
(Liu’s pilot key corresponds to the first key, and the second sent encrypted reference signal generated using that pilot key corresponds to the second sequence. Because the first information is constructed to include that the second encrypted reference sequence, Liu teaches generating the first information based on the second sequence.)
wherein before the receiving, by the first device, the downlink signal, the method further comprises: processing, by the first device, the second key based on a preset algorithm to obtain a third sequence; and sending, by the first device, a first pilot carrying the third sequence;
The encrypting the first reference signal by using the pilot key may be: encrypting the first reference signal by using an encryption algorithm and using the pilot key as a key. The encryption algorithm may be any cryptographic algorithm, for example, an Advanced Encryption Standard (advanced encryption standard, AES) encryption algorithm. The first sent encrypted reference signal is a binary sequence. The access network device sends second information to the terminal device, where the second information includes a first sent encrypted reference signal, and the first sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by using the pilot key and a first reference signal. In this implementation, the first sent encrypted reference signal is carried in the second information. See Liu, [¶¶0011, 0045-0046].
(Liu’s pilot key corresponds to the second key, the encryption algorithm corresponds to the preset algorithm, and the resulting first sent encrypted reference signal corresponds to the third sequence. The access network device sends second information carrying that encrypted reference sequence as the first pilot to the terminal device.)
wherein the first information is generated by the second device based on a channel estimate value and the second sequence;
The terminal device sends first information to the access network device, where the first information includes a second sent encrypted reference signal and downlink channel state information, the second sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by using the pilot key and a second reference signal. The terminal device performs channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain the downlink channel state information. In a possible implementation, the processing module 1602 is specifically configured to: perform channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain a downlink channel estimation value; and use first strength characteristic information and first phase characteristic information that are extracted based on the downlink channel estimation value as the downlink channel state information. (see Liu, [¶¶0107, 0109, 0439].
(Liu’s teaches sending first information that includes downlink channel state information derived from a channel estimation value and a second encrypted reference signal generated using a pilot key. According, Liu teaches first information generated based on both the channel estimate value and the key generated second sequence.)
and the channel estimate value is obtained by the second device performing channel estimation on the first pilot that is received based on the second sequence.
A terminal device receives a first received encrypted reference signal, where the first received encrypted reference signal includes a signal received by the terminal device when a first sent encrypted reference signal sent by an access network device is transmitted through a channel, the first sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by using a pilot key and a first reference signal. The terminal device performs channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain the downlink channel state information. Channel estimation is performed by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain the downlink channel state information of the terminal device capable of proving that the terminal device is an authorized terminal device. (see Liu, [¶¶0107, 0109-0110].
(The first received encrypted reference signal corresponds to the first pilot received through the channel. Liu performs channel estimation using that received signal and the locally known first sent encrypted reference signal, which corresponds to the second sequence, to obtain the channel estimate value.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baras’s key-based physical layer authentication method with Liu’s encrypted reference signal and channel estimation technique so that the authentication information is generated using both a cryptographic sequence and current channel information. This would improve Baras’s authentication by typing the authentication result to the actual wireless channel, thereby increasing resistance to spoofing and channel manipulation attacks.
Regarding claim 2, The combination Baras in view of Liu discloses “wherein the method further comprises: the authenticating, by the first device based on the first sequence, the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received, so as to obtain the authentication result comprises: in a case where [[a]]the similarity between the first sequence and the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received satisfies [[a]]the preset condition, determining, by the first device that, the authentication result is an authentication pass;” as “The test statistic τ.sub.i is obtained by match filtering the residual r.sub.i with the estimated tag {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i in the matched filter 78. The decision of authenticity for the i.sup.th block δ.sub.i is decided according to δi={0τi≤τi01τi≥τi0. If the receiver decides that the observation demonstrates knowledge of the secret key, then it authenticates the sender.” [11:21- 11:49- 10:65].
“and/or, in a case where the similarity between the first sequence and the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received does not satisfy the preset condition, determining, by the first device that, the authentication result is an authentication failure;” as “If the receiver decides that the observation demonstrates knowledge of the secret key, then it authenticates the sender, otherwise, the signal is not authenticated. The threshold τ.sub.0 of this test is determined for a false alarm probability α according to the distribution of (τ.sub.i|H.sub.0).” [10:65- 11:55]. (Baras teaches comparing the received signal and estimated tag through a threshold-based authenticity decision, where satisfaction of the condition results in authentication and failure to satisfy the condition results in no authentication.)
Regarding claim 3, The combination Baras in view of Liu discloses “wherein the method further comprises: calculating, by the first device based on the first sequence and the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received, to obtain the first numerical value;” as “The test statistic τ.sub.i is obtained by match filtering the residual r.sub.i with the estimated tag {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i in the matched filter 78. When perfect channel estimation) (ĥ.sub.i=h.sub.i) is assumed, then the message recovery (ŝ.sub.i=s.sub.i), and tag estimation ({circumflex over (t)}.sub.i=t.sub.i), then the statistic when the tagged signal is received is τ.sub.i|H.sub.1=t.sub.i.sup.Hr.sub.i. τi|H1=tiHri=.Math.ti.Math.2+h^iρt.Math.h^i.Math.2tiHω=.Math.ti.Math.2+υi(Eq.24).” [11:21 to line 34].
“and in a case where the first numerical value is within the preset threshold range, determining that the similarity between the first sequence and the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received satisfies the preset condition;” as “The threshold τ.sub.0 of this test is determined for a false alarm probability α according to the distribution of (τ.sub.i|H.sub.0). The decision of authenticity for the i.sup.th block δ.sub.i is decided according to δi={0τi≤τi01τi≥τi0.” [11:49]. (Calculating a numeric test statistic using the estimated tag and received residual and comparing that numerical value against a threshold to determine whether the authentication condition is satisfied.)
Regarding claim 7, the combination Baras in view of Liu discloses:
The method according to claim 1 (as detailed above), wherein the first sequence is same as the third sequence.;” as “The first sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by encrypting the first reference signal using the pilot key. In a possible implementation, before the terminal device performs channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, the terminal device generates the first sent encrypted reference signal using the pilot key. The terminal device performs channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal. The pilot key is obtained by performing a one-way hash operation on a shared key. See Liu, [¶¶0010, 0014, 0109, 0132].
(Liu teaches a key generated encrypted reference sequence carried by the pilot. While, Baras teaches a receiver generated key based authentication sequence. Using the same sequence for both functions avoid generating separate sequence.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art to use Liu’s key generated encrypted reference sequence as the same sequence used in Baras’s authentication process, because both sequences are generated from shared cryptographic information for secure physical layer verification. Reusing the same sequence would reduce duplicate sequence generation and ensure that authentication and channel estimation rely on a consistent secure reference.
Regarding claim 9,
Baras discloses:
An authentication method, comprising: sending, by a second device, a downlink signal;” as “A tagged signal is created and transmitted from the sender to the receiver via the wireless communication channel. The tagged signal x.sub.i=ρ.sub.ss.sub.i+ρ.sub.tt.sub.i is sent through the transmitting channel 16 from the sender/transmitter 12, wherein the tag t.sub.i reflects knowledge of the secret key shared between the sender/transmitter 12 and the aware receiver 14.” [4:21- 6:32]. (The sender/transmitter transmitting the tagged signal to the receiver, which matches sending by a second device a downlink signal).
“wherein the downlink signal is used to carry first information, and the first information is generated by the second device based on a first key;” as “The authentication information (tag signal) is sent concurrently with data (message signal). The sender/transmitter 12 sends the receiver 14 a proof of authentication, e.g., an authentication tag, with each message. A tag generator generates an authentication tag signal t by using a tag generating function, the secret key k, and the message signal to be transmitted. The tag t.sub.i reflects knowledge of the secret key shared between the sender/transmitter 12 and the aware receiver 14.” [Abstract & 6:30- 5:5- 6:34]. (The transmitted signal carries the authentication information, and that the authentication tag signal is generated by the sender/transmitter using the secret key k which matches the downlink signal carrying first information generated by a second device based on a first key.)
“the first information is used for the first device to perform authentication to obtain an authentication result;” as “The received communication signal is processed at the receiver to determine whether the tag signal is present in the received communication signal and to establish the authenticity of the received communication signal if the tag is found. The aware receiver 14 receives and analyzes the received communication signal {circumflex over (x)} to make a decision on the authenticity of the signal (sender) in the decision block 36 of FIG. 1. The decision of authenticity for the i.sup.th block δ.sub.i is decided according to 0 δi = {0 τi≤τi0 / 1 τi≥τi0 ((Eq.26).” [4:23- 10:24- 11:49]. (The receiver uses the received tag signal to determine authenticity and make an authenticity decision, which matches the first information being used for the first device to perform authentication to obtain an authentication result.)
wherein the authentication result is determined based on whether a similarity between a first sequence and the first information satisfies a preset condition, and whether the similarity satisfies the preset condition is determined based on whether a first numerical value calculated from the first sequence and the first information is within a preset threshold range;
A threshold test is performed using the hypotheses. H.sub.0: {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i is not present in r.sub.i (Eq. 22). H.sub.1: {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i is present in r.sub.i (Eq. 23)
(66) The test statistic τ.sub.i is obtained by match filtering the residual r.sub.i with the estimated tag {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i in the matched filter 78. τi|H1=tiHri (Eq.24). The decision of authenticity for the i.sup.th block δ.sub.i is decided according to, 0δi={0τi≤τi01τi≥τi0(Eq.26). The threshold τ.sub.0 of this test is determined for a false alarm probability α according to the distribution of (τ.sub.i|H.sub.0) τi0=argminτΦ(τ/σvi)≥1-α(Eq.27).”); See Baras, [11:16-35; 11:49-61].
(Baras determines the similarity by match filtering the received residual τi with the locally generated estimated tag t^i. The resulting numerical statistic τi is compared with the preset threshold τi0 to determine the authentication result.)
However, Baras does not disclose the following limitations that are taught by Liu:
and wherein the sending, by the second device, the downlink signal comprises: processing, by the second device based on a preset algorithm, the first key to obtain a second sequence; generating, by the second device, the first information based on the second sequence; and sending, by the second device, the downlink signal carrying the first information;
Encrypt the second reference signal by using the pilot key, to obtain the second sent encrypted reference signal. The terminal device sends first information to the access network device, where the first information includes a second sent encrypted reference signal and downlink channel state information, the second sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by using the pilot key and a second reference signal. See Liu, [¶¶0452, 0107].
(Liu’s uses the pilot key with an encryption algorithm to obtain the second sent encrypted reference signal, corresponding to the second sequence. Liu then expressly places that sequence in the first information and sends the first information from the terminal device to the access network device.)
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the second device, a first pilot sent from the first device; wherein the first pilot is used to carry a third sequence; the third sequence is obtained by the first device processing a second key based on a preset algorithm;
A terminal device receives a first received encrypted reference signal, where the first received encrypted reference signal includes a signal received by the terminal device when a first sent encrypted reference signal sent by an access network device is transmitted through a channel. The first sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by encrypting the first reference signal using the pilot key. The terminal device performs channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain downlink channel state information. (see Liu, [¶¶0107, 0128, 0309].
(The access network device corresponds to the first device, the pilot key corresponds to the second key, and the encryption operation corresponds to the preset algorithm. The resulting first sent encrypted reference signal corresponds to the third sequence transmitted through channel and received by the terminal device as the first pilot.)
wherein the generating, by the second device, the first information based on the second sequence comprises: performing, by the second device based on the second sequence, channel estimation on the first pilot that is received to obtain a channel estimate value;
The downlink channel state information is obtained by using the first received encrypted reference signal. In a possible implementation, the method further includes: before the terminal device sends the first information to the access network device, the method further includes: The terminal device performs channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain the downlink channel state information. Channel estimation is performed by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain the downlink channel state information of the terminal device capable of proving that the terminal device is an authorized terminal device. (see Liu, [¶¶0107, 0109-0110].
(The terminal device corresponds to the second device, the first received encrypted reference signal corresponds to the received first pilot, and the locally known first sent encrypted reference signal corresponds to the second sequence. Liu use both signals to obtain the downlink channel state information, corresponding to the channel estimate value.)
and generating, by the second device, the first information based on the second sequence and the channel estimate value.
The terminal device sends first information to the access network device, where the first information includes a second sent encrypted reference signal and downlink channel state information. The downlink channel state information is obtained by using the first received encrypted reference signal. Before the terminal device sends the first information to the access network device, the method further includes: The terminal device performs channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain the downlink channel state information. The terminal device sends an authentication response to the access network device. The authentication response may include the downlink channel state information and a second sent encrypted reference signal. (see Liu, [¶¶0107, 0109, 0311-0312].
(The first information includes downlink channel state information obtained by channel estimation using the locally known second sequence.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baras’s key-based physical layer authentication method with Liu’s encrypted reference signal and channel estimation technique so that the second device generates authentication information using both a cryptographic sequence and current channel information. This would improve Baras’s authentication by typing the transmitted authentication information to the actual wireless channel, thereby increasing resistance to spoofing and channel manipulation attacks.
Regarding claim 18,
Baras discloses:
A first device, comprising: a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory,” as “The processing system (computer) 40′ controls the operation of the aware receiver in accordance with the flow-chart presented in FIG. 5. It is to be understood, that, depending on application of the communication system 10, the processing systems 40 and 40′ may be a single processing system. The aware receiver 14 receives and analyzes the received communication signal {circumflex over (x)} to make a decision on the authenticity of the signal (sender) in the decision block 36 of FIG. 1, and if the authenticity signal (sender) is valid, the message recovery is performed in the message recovery block 38 of FIG. 1.” [9:62- 10:24].
“so as to enable the first device to perform: receiving a downlink signal;” as “A tagged signal is created and transmitted from the sender to the receiver via the wireless communication channel. The sender/transmitter 12 sends the receiver 14 a proof of authentication, e.g., an authentication tag, with each message for the aware receiver's 14 verification. The aware receiver 14 receives and analyzes the received communication signal.” [4:21- 10:24- 6:30].
“wherein the downlink signal is used to carry first information, and the first information is generated by a second device based on a first key;” as “Authentication information is sent concurrently with data without requiring extra bandwidth or transmission power. The sender/transmitter 12 sends the receiver 14 a proof of authentication, e.g., an authentication tag, with each message for the aware receiver's 14 verification. A tag generator generates an authentication tag signal t by using a tag generating function, the secret key k, and the message signal to be transmitted. Wherein the tag t.sub.i reflects knowledge of the secret key shared between the sender/transmitter 12 and the aware receiver 14.” [4:10- 6:30- 5:5- 6:34]. (The transmitted signal carries the authentication information, and that the authentication tag signal is generated by the sender/transmitter using the secret key k which matches the downlink signal carrying first information generated by a second device based on a first key.)
“and authenticating, based on a first sequence, the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received, so as to obtain an authentication result;” as “The received communication signal is processed at the receiver to determine whether the tag signal is present in the received communication signal and to establish the authenticity of the received communication signal if the tag is found. The receiver generates an estimated tag based on the estimated message signal and the secret key k known to the receiver. The aware receiver 14 receives and analyzes the received communication signal {circumflex over (x)} to make a decision on the authenticity of the signal (sender) in the decision block 36 of FIG. 1, and if the authenticity signal (sender) is valid, the message recovery is performed in the message recovery block 38 of FIG. 1. The decision of authenticity for the i.sup.th block δ.sub.i is decided according to 0 δi = {0 τi≤τi0 / 1 τi≥τi0 ((Eq.26).” [4:23- 4:35- 10:24- 11:49]. (The receiver generates an estimated tag and uses it to determine whether the tag signal is present and to establish authenticity, which matches authenticating by the first device based on a first sequence, the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received so as to obtain an authentication result.)
“wherein the first sequence is generated based on a second key;” as “The receiver generates an estimated tag based on the estimated message signal and the secret key k known to the receiver, δi = τi≤τi0. Of utmost importance in the scheme of the secure communication according to the present invention is that both sender and the receiver of the message signal are provided with a secret key k which is used in generation of the tag signal and wherein parameters of the authentication scheme are controlled to attain improved security.” [4:35- 11:55- 1:34]. (The receiver generated estimated tag is generated using the secret key k, which matches the first sequence being generated based on a second key.)
wherein the authentication result is determined based on whether a similarity between the first sequence and the first information satisfies a preset condition, and whether the similarity satisfies the preset condition is determined based on whether a first numerical value calculated from the first sequence and the first information is within a preset threshold range;
A threshold test is performed using the hypotheses. H.sub.0: {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i is not present in r.sub.i (Eq. 22). H.sub.1: {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i is present in r.sub.i (Eq. 23)
(66) The test statistic τ.sub.i is obtained by match filtering the residual r.sub.i with the estimated tag {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i in the matched filter 78. τi|H1=tiHri (Eq.24). The decision of authenticity for the i.sup.th block δ.sub.i is decided according to, 0δi={0τi≤τi01τi≥τi0(Eq.26). The threshold τ.sub.0 of this test is determined for a false alarm probability α according to the distribution of (τ.sub.i|H.sub.0) τi0=argminτΦ(τ/σvi)≥1-α(Eq.27).”); See Baras, [11:16-35; 11:49-61].
(Baras determines the similarity by match filtering the received residual τi with the locally generated estimated tag t^i. The resulting numerical statistic τi is compared with the preset threshold τi0 to determine the authentication result.)
However, Baras does not disclose the following limitations that are taught by Liu:
and wherein the first information is generated by the second device based on a second sequence, and the second sequence is generated based on the first key;
In a possible implementation, the first information further includes a second sent encrypted reference signal, and the second sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by using the pilot key and a second reference signal. The second sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by encrypting the second reference signal by using the pilot key. The second received encrypted reference information is included in the first information. See Liu, [¶¶0020, 0037, 0051].
(Liu’s pilot key corresponds to the first key, and the second sent encrypted reference signal generated using that pilot key corresponds to the second sequence. Because the first information is constructed to include that the second encrypted reference sequence, Liu teaches generating the first information based on the second sequence.)
wherein before the receiving the downlink signal, the first device further performs: processing the second key based on a preset algorithm to obtain a third sequence; and sending a first pilot carrying the third sequence;
The encrypting the first reference signal by using the pilot key may be: encrypting the first reference signal by using an encryption algorithm and using the pilot key as a key. The encryption algorithm may be any cryptographic algorithm, for example, an Advanced Encryption Standard (advanced encryption standard, AES) encryption algorithm. The first sent encrypted reference signal is a binary sequence. The access network device sends second information to the terminal device, where the second information includes a first sent encrypted reference signal, and the first sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by using the pilot key and a first reference signal. In this implementation, the first sent encrypted reference signal is carried in the second information. See Liu, [¶¶0011, 0045-0046].
(Liu’s pilot key corresponds to the second key, the encryption algorithm corresponds to the preset algorithm, and the resulting first sent encrypted reference signal corresponds to the third sequence. The access network device sends second information carrying that encrypted reference sequence as the first pilot to the terminal device.)
wherein the first information is generated by the second device based on a channel estimate value and the second sequence;
The terminal device sends first information to the access network device, where the first information includes a second sent encrypted reference signal and downlink channel state information, the second sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by using the pilot key and a second reference signal. The terminal device performs channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain the downlink channel state information. In a possible implementation, the processing module 1602 is specifically configured to: perform channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain a downlink channel estimation value; and use first strength characteristic information and first phase characteristic information that are extracted based on the downlink channel estimation value as the downlink channel state information. (see Liu, [¶¶0107, 0109, 0439].
(Liu’s teaches sending first information that includes downlink channel state information derived from a channel estimation value and a second encrypted reference signal generated using a pilot key. According, Liu teaches first information generated based on both the channel estimate value and the key generated second sequence.)
and the channel estimate value is obtained by the second device performing channel estimation on the first pilot that is received based on the second sequence.
A terminal device receives a first received encrypted reference signal, where the first received encrypted reference signal includes a signal received by the terminal device when a first sent encrypted reference signal sent by an access network device is transmitted through a channel, the first sent encrypted reference signal is obtained by using a pilot key and a first reference signal. The terminal device performs channel estimation by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain the downlink channel state information. Channel estimation is performed by using the first received encrypted reference signal and the first sent encrypted reference signal, to obtain the downlink channel state information of the terminal device capable of proving that the terminal device is an authorized terminal device. (see Liu, [¶¶0107, 0109-0110].
(The first received encrypted reference signal corresponds to the first pilot received through the channel. Liu performs channel estimation using that received signal and the locally known first sent encrypted reference signal, which corresponds to the second sequence, to obtain the channel estimate value.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baras’s key-based physical layer authentication device with Liu’s encrypted reference signal and channel estimation technique so that the first device processes authentication information is using both a cryptographic sequence and current channel information. This would improve Baras’s authentication by typing the authentication result to the actual wireless channel, thereby increasing resistance to spoofing and channel manipulation attacks.
Regarding claim 19, The combination Baras in view of Liu discloses “wherein the first device further performs: the authenticating, based on the first sequence, the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received, so as to obtain the authentication result comprises: in a case where [[a]]the similarity between the first sequence and the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received satisfies [[a]]the preset condition, determining that the authentication result is an authentication pass;” as “The test statistic τ.sub.i is obtained by match filtering the residual r.sub.i with the estimated tag {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i in the matched filter 78. The decision of authenticity for the i.sup.th block δ.sub.i is decided according to δi={0τi≤τi01τi≥τi0. If the receiver decides that the observation demonstrates knowledge of the secret key, then it authenticates the sender.” [11:21- 11:49- 10:65].
“and/or, in a case where a similarity between the first sequence and the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received does not satisfy a preset condition, determining, by the first device that, the authentication result is an authentication failure.” as “If the receiver decides that the observation demonstrates knowledge of the secret key, then it authenticates the sender, otherwise, the signal is not authenticated. The threshold τ.sub.0 of this test is determined for a false alarm probability α according to the distribution of (τ.sub.i|H.sub.0).” [10:65- 11:57].
(Baras teaches comparing the received signal and estimated tag through a threshold-based authenticity decision, where satisfaction of the condition results in authentication and failure to satisfy the condition results in no authentication.)
Regarding claim 20, The combination Baras in view of Liu discloses “wherein the first device further performs the method further comprises: calculating, based on the first sequence and the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received, to obtain [[a]]the first numerical value;” as “The test statistic τ.sub.i is obtained by match filtering the residual r.sub.i with the estimated tag {circumflex over (t)}.sub.i in the matched filter 78. When perfect channel estimation) (ĥ.sub.i=h.sub.i) is assumed, then the message recovery (ŝ.sub.i=s.sub.i), and tag estimation ({circumflex over (t)}.sub.i=t.sub.i), then the statistic when the tagged signal is received is τ.sub.i|H.sub.1=t.sub.i.sup.Hr.sub.i. τi|H1=tiHri=.Math.ti.Math.2+h^iρt.Math.h^i.Math.2tiHω=.Math.ti.Math.2+υi(Eq.24).” [COL. 11: LINE. 20 to 35].
“and in a case where the first numerical value is within a preset threshold range, determining that the similarity between the first sequence and the first information carried in the downlink signal that is received satisfies a preset condition.” as “The threshold τ.sub.0 of this test is determined for a false alarm probability α according to the distribution of (τ.sub.i|H.sub.0). The decision of authenticity for the i.sup.th block δ.sub.i is decided according to δi={0τi≤τi01τi≥τi0.” [11:49].
(Calculating a numeric test statistic using the estimated tag and received residual and comparing that numerical value against a threshold to determine whether the authentication condition is satisfied.)
Claim 8 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARAS [US 9161214 B2] in view of LIU [US 2023/031,9557 A1], and further in view of FAIRBANKS et al. [US 8681987 B2].
Claim 8 is rejected over Baras and Fairbanks.
Baras teaches: The method according to claim 4 (as detailed above).
Baras does not explicitly teach: wherein the downlink signal is further used to carry a first downlink service command.
However, in an analogous art, Fairbanks teaches:
“wherein the downlink signal is further used to carry a first downlink service command. as “Receiving an acknowledgement from the tag indicating that the tag was able to decrypt the password and authenticate the reader based on the transmitted, encrypted password; generating a read memory request; transmitting the read memory request to the tag. In step 530, the reader can transmit a read memory command, which can be received and processed by the tag in step 532. Receiving a read memory request in response to the acknowledgement, and executing the read memory request.” [11:46- 9:12- 3:57]. (Sending a command after authentication, which matches the downlink signal carrying a service command.)
Baras and Fairbanks are analogous arts because they both teach wireless communication systems using authentication between communicating devices and transmitting information after successful authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of BARAS and FAIRBANKS before him/her, to modify the teachings of BARAS to include the teachings of FAIRBANKS so that, the downlink signal is further used to carry a first downlink service command, with the motivation of allowing a command to be sent after authentication is complete
Claim 13 is rejected over Baras and Fairbanks.
Baras teaches: The method according to claim 10 (as detailed above).
Baras does not explicitly teach: wherein the downlink signal is further used to carry a first downlink service command.
However, in an analogous art, Fairbanks teaches:
“wherein the downlink signal is further used to carry a first downlink service command. as “Receiving an acknowledgement from the tag indicating that the tag was able to decrypt the password and authenticate the reader based on the transmitted, encrypted password; generating a read memory request; transmitting the read memory request to the tag. In step 530, the reader can transmit a read memory command, which can be received and processed by the tag in step 532. Receiving a read memory request in response to the acknowledgement, and executing the read memory request.” [11:46- 9:12- 3:57]. (Sending a command after authentication, which matches the downlink signal carrying a service command.)
Baras and Fairbanks are analogous arts because they both teach wireless communication systems using authentication between communicating devices and transmitting information after successful authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of BARAS and FAIRBANKS before him/her, to modify the teachings of BARAS to include the teachings of FAIRBANKS so that, the downlink signal is further used to carry a first downlink service command, with the motivation of allowing a command to be sent after authentication is complete.
Claim 14 is rejected over Baras and Fairbanks.
Baras teaches: The method according to claim 13 (as detailed above).
Baras does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing, by the second device based on the preset algorithm, the first key to obtain the second sequence comprises: processing, by the second device based on the preset algorithm, the first key and the first downlink service command to obtain the second sequence.
However, in an analogous art, Fairbanks teaches:
“wherein the processing, by the second device based on the preset algorithm, the first key to obtain the second sequence comprises: processing, by the second device based on the preset algorithm, the first key and the first downlink service command to obtain the second sequence.” as “The password changes can also be changed by algorithm and changed on command or after a programmable number of successful accesses. The mathematical kernel can receive multiple inputs for generating the password key. The password changes can also be changed by algorithm and changed on command or after a programmable number of successful accesses.” [3:65- 3:63]. (Using an algorithm with command input to make the key output.)
Baras and Fairbanks are analogous arts because they both teach wireless authentication systems using key generation and command-based processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of BARAS and FAIRBANKS before him/her, to modify the teachings of BARAS to include the teachings of FAIRBANKS so that, processing by the second device based on the preset algorithm, the first key to obtain the second sequence includes processing the first key and first downlink service command, with the motivation of allowing key generation or sequence processing to be changed on command.
Claim 15 is rejected over Baras and Fairbanks.
Baras teaches: The method according to claim 13 (as detailed above).
Baras does not explicitly teach: wherein the method further comprises: generating, by the second device, a first scrambling code based on the first key; and scrambling, by the second device, a second downlink service command based on the first scrambling code to obtain the first downlink service command.
However, in an analogous art, Fairbanks teaches:
“wherein the method further comprises: generating, by the second device, a first scrambling code based on the first key; and scrambling, by the second device, a second downlink service command based on the first scrambling code to obtain the first downlink service command.” as “In certain embodiments, scrambling can be selected for the password key. Different choices for implementing scrambling should also be indexed as well for synchronization to function in password decryption. Scrambling can be used to further improve the authentication mechanism. Scrambling the output from PRSG 400 can be accomplished by a series of manipulations to the password key. The password key output from PRSG 400 can be taken for example as 32-bit key comprising bits 0-31.” [6:65- 7:37]. (Making a scrambling value from a key and using it to scramble data.)
Baras and Fairbanks are analogous arts because they both teach wireless authentication systems using key based protection of transmitted information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of BARAS and FAIRBANKS before him/her, to modify the teachings of BARAS to include the teachings of FAIRBANKS so that, the second device generates a first scrambling code based on the first key and scrambles a second downlink service command based on the first scrambling code to obtain the first downlink service command, with the motivation of improving security by scrambling information using a key based scrambling process.
Claim 16 is rejected over Baras and Fairbanks.
Baras teaches: The method according to claim 15 (as detailed above).
Baras does not explicitly teach: wherein the scrambling, by the second device, the second downlink service command based on the first scrambling code to obtain the first downlink service command comprises: scrambling, by the second device, the second downlink service command and a first random number based on the first scrambling code to obtain the first downlink service command. Scrambling the output from PRSG 400 can be accomplished by a series of manipulations to the password key.
However, in an analogous art, Fairbanks teaches:
“wherein the scrambling, by the second device, the second downlink service command based on the first scrambling code to obtain the first downlink service command comprises: scrambling, by the second device, the second downlink service command and a first random number based on the first scrambling code to obtain the first downlink service command. Scrambling the output from PRSG 400 can be accomplished by a series of manipulations to the password key.” as “A predetermined sequence, or seed sequence, is used to generate an output sequence. In the case of a chaotically driven password generator, a randomized seed number is often employed. Scrambling the output from PRSG 400 can be accomplished by a series of manipulations to the password key.” [5:34- 7:37]. (Using a random number and scrambling together.)
Baras and Fairbanks are analogous arts because they both teach wireless authentication systems using key based processing and random or pseudo random values for security.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of BARAS and FAIRBANKS before him/her, to modify the teachings of BARAS to include the teachings of FAIRBANKS so that, scrambling by the second device includes scrambling the second downlink service command and a first random number based on the first scrambling code to obtain the first downlink service command, with the motivation of improving security by adding a random value into the scrambling process.
Claim 17 is rejected over Baras and Fairbanks.
Baras teaches: The method according to claim 15 (as detailed above).
Baras does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing, by the second device based on the preset algorithm, the first key to obtain the second sequence comprises: processing, by the second device based on the preset algorithm, the first key and the second downlink service command to obtain the second sequence.
However, in an analogous art, Fairbanks teaches:
“wherein the processing, by the second device based on the preset algorithm, the first key to obtain the second sequence comprises: processing, by the second device based on the preset algorithm, the first key and the second downlink service command to obtain the second sequence.” as “The password changes can also be changed by algorithm and changed on command or after a programmable number of successful accesses. Each of these elements described above make up the mathematical kernel for operating the PRSG. The mathematical kernel can be indexed and stored in the tag's NVM for later recall. The mathematical kernel can receive multiple inputs for generating the password key.” [3:65- 6:61- 6:49]. (Using a key algorithm and command together to make a sequence.)
Baras and Fairbanks are analogous arts because they both teach wireless authentication systems using key generation controlled by algorithm and command input.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of BARAS and FAIRBANKS before him/her, to modify the teachings of BARAS to include the teachings of FAIRBANKS so that, processing by the second device based on the preset algorithm, the first key obtain the second sequence includes processing the first key and the second downlink service command, with the motivation of allowing key generation or sequence processing to be changed on command.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARHAM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-8950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5 pm. Alternate Friday off..
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571) 270-5143. 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.
/A.N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights