Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 19 are objected to because in the third line of the claims limitation where it say “a layer1/layer2” is indefinite because examiner cannot tell if applicant want to recite layer1 and layer2 or layer1 or layer2. Proper correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 13, 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 19 co-pending application No. 19/034560, Zhang, et al., hereafter Zhang, in view of Teyeb et al. (US-20250374132-A1 hereafter Teyeb). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application 19/084615
Co-pending application 19/034560
1 and 13. A method, An apparatus comprising:
1 and 10 A method, An apparatus comprising:
a transceiver which, during operation, communicates wirelessly; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver such that, during
operation, the processor performs operations comprising:
a transceiver which, during operation, communicates wirelessly; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver such that, during operation, the processor performs operations comprising:
receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, a security key update information from a network node during a layer1 /layer2 triggered mobility (LTM) procedure;
deriving, by the processor, a security key for a target cell based on the security key
update information;
receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, a layer1/layer2 triggered mobility (LTM) configuration associated with a secondary cell group (SCG) from a network node;
obtaining, by the processor, a security key for a target secondary node (SN), wherein the security key for the target SN is calculated based on the LTM configuration;
performing, by the processor, an LTM cell switch to switch to the target cell; and
transmitting, by the processor, a message encrypted with the security key to the
target cell.
and transmitting, by the processor, at least one message encrypted with the security key to the target SN.
19 A method, comprising:
19 A method, comprising:
determining, by a processor of a network node, at least one candidate cell for a
user equipment (UE);
configuring, by a processor of a network node, at least one candidate secondary node (SN) for a user equipment (UE);
and transmitting, by the processor, a security key update information to the UE during a layer1 /layer2 triggered mobility (LTM) procedure for a security key derivation associated with the at least one candidate cell.
and transmitting, by the processor, a layer1/layer2 triggered mobility (LTM) configuration associated with a secondary cell group (SCG) to the UE, wherein the LTM configuration comprises at least one sk-counter list for a security update for the candidate SN.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 10 and 19 of the co-pending application by Zhang contains every element of claims 1, 13 and 19 of the instant application except for the bolded limitations as seen in the above table. Teyeb teaches performing, by the processor, an LTM cell switch to switch to the target cell (Teyeb par.0100: “WTRU performs mobility from left to right, the WTRU may switch (e.g., switch dynamically) the Scell between Cell2 and Cell3. The WTRU may receive, from the source cell, a LTM indication to perform a handover (HO) to a candidate cell (e.g., SCell 3) among the one or more candidate cells. The LTM indication to perform the HO may indicate that a special cell (SpCell) associated with the WTRU is to be changed.”). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the teaching of Zhang to incorporate the teaching of Teyeb to activate measurement configurations and which of the plurality of measurement configurations are not to be activated upon performing mobility to the second cell LTM switch to a target cell if the condition are met, as recognize by (Teyeb, par.0101).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by AKL et al. (US-20250274818-A1 hereafter AKL).
Regarding claim 19 AKL disclose a method, comprising:
determining, by a processor of a network node, at least one candidate cell for a user equipment (UE) (see AKL par.0147: “the network entity 105-a may output an indication (e.g., a cell switch command) to the UE 115-b to trigger the LTM procedure to the cell 305-b provided by the network entity 105-b. For instance, the network entity 105-a may output the indication (e.g., trigger or cell switch command) to the UE 115-b via a media access control (MAC) control element (CE). In some approaches, the network entity 105-a may determine to trigger an LTM cell switch to a target cell. The network entity 105-a may output (e.g., transmit) a MAC CE triggering the LTM cell switch by including a candidate configuration index of the target cell.”, furthermore par.0020: “The source network entity may include one or more memories storing processor executable code, and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories. The one or more processors may individually or collectively be operable to execute the code to cause the source network entity to output second information to a UE,”); and
transmitting, by the processor, a security key update information to the UE during a layer1 /layer2 triggered mobility (LTM) procedure for a security key derivation associated with the at least one candidate cell (see AKL par.0142: “the network entity 105-a may transmit an RRCReconfiguration message to the UE 115-b indicating the LTM candidate configuration of one or multiple LTM candidate cells (e.g., the cell 305-a, cell 305-b, and cell 305-c).”, par.0143: “The network entity 105-a may output second information 320 to the UE 115-b. The UE 115-b may receive the second information 320. The second information 320 may indicate a security configuration for securing UE communication. For instance, the security configuration may include a NCC value. The UE 115-b may utilize the NCC value to derive a security key for securing UE communication with the network entity 105-b after the first handover 340-a.”).
Regarding claim 20 AKL disclose the method of Claim 19, AKL further disclose wherein:
the security key update information is transmitted during an LTM preparation stage or is carried by an LTM cell switch command; or
the security key update information comprises a next hop chaining counter (NCC) value (see AKL par.0161: “the network entity 105-b may output the indication of the security configuration to one or more network entities that provide one or more candidate cells. For instance, the network entity 105-b may output an indication (via the backhaul link 120-a or the backhaul link 120-b) of the security configuration to the network entity 105-a (that provides a cell 305-a that is associated with the at least one LTM candidate configuration for the UE 115-b) or to the network entity 105-c (that provides a cell 305-c that is associated with the at least one LTM candidate configuration for the UE 115-b). In some aspects, the indication may indicate an NCC value and a key value associated with the cell 305-a provided by the network entity 105-a or may indicate an NCC value and a key value associated with the cell 305-c provided by the network entity 105-c.”) or an NCC associated information.
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 1-6, 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKL et al. (US-20250274818-A1 hereafter AKL), in view of Teyeb et al. (US-20250374132-A1 hereafter Teyeb).
Regarding claim 1 AKL discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of an apparatus (see AKL par.0203: “The device 705 may be an example of aspects of a UE 115 as described herein. The device 705 may include a receiver 710, a transmitter 715, and a communications manager 720. The device 705, or one or more components of the device 705 (e.g., the receiver 710, the transmitter 715, the communications manager 720), may include at least one processor, which may be coupled with at least one memory, to, individually or collectively, support or enable the described techniques.”), a security key update information from a network node during a layer1 /layer2 triggered mobility (LTM) procedure (see AKL par.0005: “the UE may receive a security configuration with the configuration of LTM candidates, where the security configuration may be utilized to secure communication with a target cell for an initial handover via an initial LTM procedure. After the initial LTM procedure for the initial handover, the UE may receive an independent security configuration update (e.g., next hop chaining count (NCC) value) for a subsequent LTM execution… The key update may be provided from the same or a different network entity (e.g., gNB) that configures the LTM candidates on the UE”);
deriving, by the processor, a security key for a target cell based on the security key update information (see AKL par.0118: “key derivation from the perspective of a UE 115 during a mobility procedure is given as follows. A UE 115 may use a key associated with the first network entity with NCC=5. A UE may receive a handover command, including NCC=5, from a first network entity. The UE 115 may perform horizontal key derivation and perform the handover to a second network entity”);
performing, by the processor, an LTM cell switch to switch to the target cell (see AKL par.0140: “a handover may be triggered by a UE 115-b via a conditional LTM procedure. In the conditional LTM procedure, the UE 115-b may perform handover by detaching from a source network entity and accessing a target network entity in response to the satisfaction of one or more handover conditions (e.g., a threshold signal measurement, a decline in signal quality from a source network entity, among other examples).”); and
AKL does not explicitly teach transmitting, by the processor, a message encrypted with the security key to the target cell;
In this instance examiner notes the teaching of prior art reference Teyeb.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation of, transmitting, by the processor, a message encrypted with the security key to the target cell (see Teyeb par.0005: “The WTRU may be configured to, after receiving the LTM indication to perform the HO, transmit a second uplink data to the candidate cell that is encrypted using the second security context.”).
Therefore It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined AKL teaching “the UE 115 may receive a security configuration with the configuration of LTM candidates, where the security configuration may be utilized to secure communication with a target cell for an initial handover via an initial LTM procedure. After the initial LTM procedure for the initial handover, the UE 115 may receive an independent security configuration update (e.g., NCC value) for a subsequent LTM execution.”, (see AKL par.0122) with Teyeb teaching because Teyeb teaching of, “ensure that data that was already encrypted and/or integrity protected with the previous keys will not be transmitted (e.g., in the UL) or wrongly received in the DL (e.g., the WTRU..)”, (see Teyeb par.0092).
Regarding claim 13 is apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 1. a transceiver which, during operation, communicates wirelessly (see AKL par.0205: “the transmitter 715 may be co-located with a receiver 710 in a transceiver module. The transmitter 715 may utilize a single antenna or a set of multiple antennas.”); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver such that, during
operation (see AKL par.0207: “the transmitter 715, or various combinations or components thereof may be implemented in hardware (e.g., in communications management circuitry). The hardware may include at least one of a processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), a central processing unit (CPU), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, a microcontroller, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof configured as or otherwise supporting, individually or collectively, a means for performing the functions described in the present disclosure. In some examples, at least one processor and at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor may be configured to perform one or more of the functions described herein”), the processor performs operations comprising:
Regarding claim 2 AKL in view of Teyeb disclose the method of Claim 1, AKL further teaches wherein the security key update information is carried by a radio resource control (RRC) message received during an LTM preparation stage (see AKL par.0154: “the first information 315 indicating the at least one LTM candidate configuration includes an LTM candidate configuration associated with the cell 305-c and the first LTM procedure is for the first handover 340-a. The UE 115-b may receive the security information 330 from the network entity 105-b subsequent to the first handover 340-a. The security information 330 may indicate a security configuration for securing UE communication (with the network entity 105-c via the cell 305-c, for example).”, par.0154: “the security information 330 (e.g., NCC value) may be output to the UE 115-b via an RRC message.”).
Regarding claim 14 is apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 2 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3 AKL in view of Teyeb disclose the method of Claim 1, AKL further teaches wherein the security key update information is carried by an LTM cell switch command (see AKL par.0140: “an LTM procedure may be referred to as an LTM cell switch. In an LTM procedure, a handover may be triggered via L1 or L2 signaling from a network entity (e.g., the network entity 105-a or the network entity 105-b). For example, a subsequent handover may be triggered via a media access control (MAC) control element (CE) message (without performing an RRC reconfiguration, for instance).” Which is consistent with applicant definition of LTM cell switch command, see applicant instant application [par.0025]: “security key update information may be received during an L TM cell switch execution stage. For instance, the security key update information may be carried by an L TM cell switch command, which may be carried by an MAC-control element (CE) message.”).
Regarding claim 15 is apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 3 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4 AKL in view of Teyeb disclose the method of Claim 1, AKL further teaches wherein the security key update information is received before receiving an LTM cell switch command (see AKL par.0167: “the indication of the security configuration may be outputted prior to an LTM procedure or prior to outputting the security information 330 to the UE 115-b (e.g., before outputting the security configuration or before an LTM procedure for the handover 340-b).”).
Regarding claim 5 AKL in view of Teyeb the method of Claim 4, AKL do not explicitly teach however Teyeb teaches wherein the security key update information is carried by a medium access control (MAC) - control element (CE) message different from the LTM cell switch command or is indicated by a downlink control information (DCI) format (see Teyeb par.0004: “receive unit (WTRU) may be configured to process first downlink data from a source cell using a first security context. The WTRU may receive, from the source cell, configuration information indicating one or more candidate cells for Layer 1 or Layer 2 (L1/L2) triggered mobility (LTM). The WTRU may receive, from the source cell, a LTM indication to perform a handover (HO) to a candidate cell among the one or more candidate cells.”).
Therefore It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined AKL in view Teyeb teaching of claim 4 with Teyeb teaching because of Teyeb teaching of, “Processing downlink data may comprise performing integrity verification and decryption using the one or more integrity protection keys and decryption keys associated with the second security context.”, (see Teyeb par.0085).
Regarding claim 6 AKL in view of Teyeb disclose the method of Claim 1, AKL further teaches wherein the security key update information comprises a next hop chaining counter (NCC) value (see AKL par.0064: “the UE may receive an independent security configuration update (e.g., NCC value) for a subsequent LTM execution.”), and the method further comprises:
deriving, by the processor, the security key for the target cell based on the NCC value and a target cell identifier (see AKL par.0118: “key derivation from the perspective of a UE 115 during a mobility procedure is given as follows. A UE 115 may use a key associated with the first network entity with NCC=5. A UE may receive a handover command, including NCC=5, from a first network entity. The UE 115 may perform horizontal key derivation and perform the handover to a second network entity… The UE 115 may use the key associated with the second network entity with NCC=5. The UE 115 may receive a subsequent handover command including NCC=6. The UE 115 may perform vertical key derivation and perform the handover to a third network entity.” Which is consistent with applicant’s instant application definition in par.[0027] “the UE 310 derives the security key for the target cell based on the security
key update information received in operation 334 and a target cell identifier (ID) included in the LTM cell switch command MAC-CE. For example, according to the security key update information included in the indication for the current L TM cell switch, the UE 310 may perform a vertical key derivation process to derive the security key for the target cell.”).
Regarding claim 16 is apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 6 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding claim 11 AKL in view of Teyeb disclose the method of Claim 1, AKL further teaches wherein the security key update information is for a security key derivation process for a next LTM cell switch (see AKL par.0143: “The network entity 105-a may output second information 320 to the UE 115-b. The UE 115-b may receive the second information 320. The second information 320 may indicate a security configuration for securing UE communication. For instance, the security configuration may include a NCC value. The UE 115-b may utilize the NCC value to derive a security key for securing UE communication with the network entity 105-b after the first handover 340-a.”).
Regarding claim 12 AKL in view of Teyeb disclose the method of Claim 1, AKL further teaches wherein the security key update information is for a vertical key derivation process (see AKL par.0118: “The UE 115 may use the key associated with the second network entity with NCC=5. The UE 115 may receive a subsequent handover command including NCC=6. The UE 115 may perform vertical key derivation and perform the handover to a third network entity.”), and the method further comprises:
performing, by the processor, a horizontal key derivation process to derive the security key in an event that the security key update information is absent (see par. AKL: “The UE 115 may perform horizontal key derivation and perform the handover to a second network entity. As used herein, the term “horizontal key derivation” may indicate a key derivation that is performed without the involvement of one or more core network entities (e.g., AMF entity). For instance, a horizontal key derivation may not involve the generation of a fresh key by an AMF entity. As used herein, a “fresh key” may be a key that is newly generated (by the AMF entity, for example).” Examiner construe that the horizontal key derivation is done without the involvement of one or more core network entities (an event that the security key update information is absent)).
Regarding claim 18 is apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 12 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 12.
Claims 7, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKL in view of Teyeb as applied to claim 1, in further view of Chen et al. (US-11800416-B2 hereafter Chen).
Regarding claim 7 AKL in view of Teyeb disclose the method of Claim 1, AKL further teaches wherein the security key update information comprises a next hop chaining counter (NCC) associated information (see AKL par.0005: “For initial configuration, the UE may receive a security configuration with the configuration of LTM candidates, where the security configuration may be utilized to secure communication with a target cell for an initial handover via an initial LTM procedure. After the initial LTM procedure for the initial handover, the UE may receive an independent security configuration update (e.g., next hop chaining count (NCC) value) for a subsequent LTM execution. For example, the LTM configuration may occur once, but a key update may recur with one or more subsequent inter-gNB LTM executions.”), and the method further comprises: and
deriving, by the processor, the security key for the target cell based on the NCC value and a target cell identifier (see AKL par.0149: “The UE 115-b may transmit a signal (not shown in FIG. 3) to the network entity 105-b based on the second information 320 that indicates the security configuration. For example, the UE 115-b may transmit one or more messages to the network entity 105-b using a security key that is derived from the NCC value of the security”).
AKL in view of Teyeb do not explicitly disclose deriving, by the processor, an NCC value based on the NCC associated information;
In this instance Examiner notes the teaching of prior art reference Chen.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation of, deriving, by the processor, an NCC value based on the NCC associated information (see Chen Col.13 lines 34-39: “if a current NCC of the terminal is equal to 0, and an NCC received by the terminal is 1, the terminal first derives KgNB based on Kamf, sets a current NH of the terminal to KgNB, adds 1 to the current NCC of the terminal to obtain the NCC=1”);
Therefore It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined AKL in view Teyeb teaching of claim 1 with Chen teaching because Chen teaching of, “ it is insufficient to send only the NCC in the reestablishment message, and the keys are inconsistent…in addition to the NCC, the reestablishment message further carries key derivation information. The key derivation information includes different specific parameters according to different situations.”, (see Chen Col.18 lines 22-38).
Regarding claim 8 AKL in view of Teyeb, and Chen the method of Claim 7, AKL further teaches wherein the NCC associated information comprises:
an NCC increment indicator;
a difference between the NCC value and a second NCC value (see AKL par.0175: “The notification 450 may indicate the LTM trigger of the UE 115-c to the second network entity or second cell, may indicate an NCC value to be utilized by the UE 115-c, or may indicate a key value.”, par.0198: “the network entity 105-e may output the updated (e.g., fresh) NCC value to the UE 115-e via an RRC message. In some examples, the (target) network entity 105-e may provide the NCC value based on the reception of the updated key value or NCC value from the AMF entity 645 during a path switch procedure.” Examiner interpret that the NCC is associated with the difference between the previously provided and the updated NCC); or
a parameter of a formula for deriving the NCC value.
Regarding claim 17 AKL in view of Teyeb disclose the apparatus of Claim 13, AKL further teaches wherein the security key update information comprises a next hop chaining counter (NCC) associated information (see AKL par.0005: “For initial configuration, the UE may receive a security configuration with the configuration of LTM candidates, where the security configuration may be utilized to secure communication with a target cell for an initial handover via an initial LTM procedure. After the initial LTM procedure for the initial handover, the UE may receive an independent security configuration update (e.g., next hop chaining count (NCC) value) for a subsequent LTM execution. For example, the LTM configuration may occur once, but a key update may recur with one or more subsequent inter-gNB LTM executions.”), and during operation, the processor further performs operations comprising:
deriving the security key for the target cell based on the NCC value and a target cell identifier (see AKL par. 0143: “The UE 115-b may receive the second information 320. The second information 320 may indicate a security configuration for securing UE communication. For instance, the security configuration may include a NCC value. The UE 115-b may utilize the NCC value to derive a security key for securing UE communication with the network entity 105-b after the first handover 340-a.”),wherein the NCC associated information comprises:
an NCC increment indicator; and
a difference between the NCC value and a second NCC value (see AKL par.0175: “The notification 450 may indicate the LTM trigger of the UE 115-c to the second network entity or second cell, may indicate an NCC value to be utilized by the UE 115-c, or may indicate a key value.”, par.0198: “the network entity 105-e may output the updated (e.g., fresh) NCC value to the UE 115-e via an RRC message. In some examples, the (target) network entity 105-e may provide the NCC value based on the reception of the updated key value or NCC value from the AMF entity 645 during a path switch procedure.” Examiner interpret that the NCC is associated with the difference between the previously provided and the updated NCC); or
a parameter of a formula for deriving the NCC value.
AKL in view of Teyeb do not explicitly disclose deriving an NCC value based on the NCC associated information;
In this instance Examiner notes the teaching of prior art reference Chen.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation of, deriving an NCC value based on the NCC associated information (see Chen Col.13 lines 34-39: “if a current NCC of the terminal is equal to 0, and an NCC received by the terminal is 1, the terminal first derives KgNB based on Kamf, sets a current NH of the terminal to KgNB, adds 1 to the current NCC of the terminal to obtain the NCC=1”);
Therefore It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined AKL in view Teyeb teaching of claim 1 with Chen teaching because Chen teaching of, “ it is insufficient to send only the NCC in the reestablishment message, and the keys are inconsistent… in addition to the NCC, the reestablishment message further carries key derivation information. The key derivation information includes different specific parameters according to different situations.”, (see Chen Col.18 lines 22-38).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKL in view of Teyeb, and Chen as applied to claim 8, in further view of Kim et al. (US-20240147328-A1 hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 9 AKL in view of Teyeb, and Chen disclose the method of Claim 8, AKL in view of Teyeb, and Chen do not explicitly teach however Kim teaches wherein the second NCC value comprises a previous NCC value maintained in the apparatus (see Kim par.0255: “The wireless device may have a stored NCC value and resume identity. The wireless device may receive an RRC release message with suspend indication (or suspend configuration parameters) where the RRC release message comprises at least one of: the resume identity; and the NCC value.”).
Therefore It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined AKL in view Teyeb, and Chen teaching of claim 8 with Kim teaching because Kim teaching of, “Based on the KRRCint, and the previously configured integrity protection algorithm, the wireless device may verify the integrity protection of the RRC reestablishment message. Based on the verifying being failed, the wireless device (wireless device-AS layer) may transition to RRC IDLE state and may provide a release cause ‘RRC connection failure’ to upper layers (wireless device-NAS layer) of the wireless device.”, (see Kim par.0287). The reason to combine would have been to compare the precious value with a new created value.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKL in view of Teyeb as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kim et al. (US-20240147328-A1 hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 10 AKL in view of Teyeb disclose the method of Claim 1, AKL in view of Teyeb do not explicitly disclose however Kim teaches further comprising:
storing, by the processor, the security key or an intermediate data generated during deriving the security key(see Kim par.0233: “the core network entity (e.g., AMF/MME) and wireless device may keep key for a core network entity (e.g., KAMF/KMME), KNASint and KNASenc stored.”).
Therefore It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined AKL in view Teyeb teaching of claim 1 with Kim teaching because Kim teaching of, “he wireless device may restore the stored configuration parameters and the stored security keys from the (stored) wireless device inactive AS context (1840). For example, the wireless device may restore the stored configuration parameters and the stored security keys (e.g., KgNB and KRRCint) from the stored wireless device Inactive AS context except for the master cell group configuration parameters, MR-DC related configuration parameters (e.g., secondary cell group configuration parameters) and PDCP configuration parameters.”, (see Kim par.0314). The reason to combine would have been to restore connection using the previous key or performing sequential integrity check.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure:
Sirotkin et al. (US 20230136259 A1) methods for updating security keys of UEs after handover. Such methods can be either explicit or implicit. Explicit updating of security keys can occur when the network, e.g., gNodeB, generates and transmits a command that updates the security of the UE. In other implementations, implicit updating of the UE's security keys can occur. Such implicit updating of security keys can occur autonomously by the UE upon detection, by the UE, of certain events such as, e.g., completion of a handover event. the data indicating an indication of a handover event is received via L1, L2.
BASU et al. (WO2024057283 A1) a UE determines to switch connectivity from a first secondary cell group (SCG) associated with a master cell group (MCG) to a second SCG associated with the MCG. The UE, for example, has previously connected to (e.g., visited) the second SCG. The UE informs the MCG (e.g., a primary cell (PCell) of the MCG) of the upcoming connectivity switch. In at least one implementation, the connectivity switch represents an impending Layer 1/Layer 2 (L1/L2) mobility of the UE from the first SCG to the second SCG. Accordingly, the MCG uses a security counter value (e.g., sk-counter) to generate a new secondary key (e.g., from a master key of the MCG using the security counter value) and the MCG transmits the security counter value to the UE. Further, the MCG transmits the new secondary key to the second SCG. the MCG uses a security counter value (e.g., sk-counter) to generate a new secondary key (e.g., from a master key of the MCG using the security counter value) and the MCG transmits the security counter value to the UE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUILIO MUNGUIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM - 5:00Pm.
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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/DUILIO MUNGUIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2497 /ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights