DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to a non-provisional utility patent application filed by Applicant on 4/1/2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted by applicant on 4/1/2025 and 6/24/2026 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
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.
Claim 1–18 and 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/097,313. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 19/097,313. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The present application, as claimed, satisfies the requirements for patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nair (US 2025/0055678 A1, published Feb. 13, 2025).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 20, Nair discloses: a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: receive, from a network entity, a security mode command message that contains security mode information (NAS security Mode Command message 511 is sent to the UE and contains security procedure data. Nair Figure 5, element 511 and ¶ 89.), including: a security context parameter that indicates a security context for communications between the UE and the network entity (the message includes previously received UE security capabilities, the selected NAS algorithms, a key set identifier, and a message authentication code. Nair ¶ 89.); one or more authenticated encryption with associated data (AEAD) algorithms associated with the security context; and one or more AEAD modes associated with the one or more AEAD algorithms (the message includes the selected NAS algorithms from the prioritized list. Nair ¶ 89. The system implements combined integrity and encryption algorithms in place of or in addition to separate integrity algorithms and ciphering algorithms (AEAD), which indicates the mode depending on the selected algorithm framework. Nair ¶ 101–102.); generate an AEAD security key based on the one or more AEAD algorithms and the one or more AEAD modes (key generation based upon the input parameters and the cipher algorithm. Nair ¶ 100.); and transmit, to the network entity, a security mode complete message that is ciphered and integrity protected with the AEAD security key (Security Mode Complete message 512. Nair ¶ 90–91.).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Nair discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, respectively, wherein the security context parameter indicates a non-access stratum (NAS) security context for the communications between the UE and the network entity (Nair ¶ 89.).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Nair discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, respectively, wherein the security context parameter indicates an access stratum (AS) security context for the communications between the UE and the network entity (Nair ¶¶ 93–95.).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Nair discloses the limitations of claims 3 and 12, respectively, wherein the AS security context includes a radio resource control (RRC) security context (Nair ¶¶ 93–95.).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Nair discloses the limitations of claims 3 and 12, respectively, wherein the AS security context includes a user plane (UP) security context (Nair ¶¶ 93–95.).
Regarding claim 6, Nair discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the security mode command message contains a prioritized list of AEAD algorithms selected by the network entity (Nair ¶ 143.), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to generate the AEAD security key using an AEAD algorithm that is supported by the UE and that has a high priority in the prioritized list (key generation based upon the input parameters and the cipher algorithm. Nair ¶ 100. The selected algorithms from the prioritized list. Nair ¶ 89.).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Inamdar in view of Nair discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, respectively, wherein the one or more AEAD algorithms include a SNOW-3G based algorithm, an advanced encryption standard (AES) based algorithm, or a ZUC based algorithm (Nair ¶¶ 188–189.).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Inamdar discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, respectively, wherein the one or more AEAD modes include: an encrypt-then-MAC (EtM) mode; a MAC-then-encrypt (MtE) mode; an encryption only mode; or an integrity only mode (integrity and encryption mode 1081, integrity mode 1082, without encryption, encryption mode 1083 without integrity protection. Nair ¶ 107.).
Regarding claim 10, Nair discloses the limitations of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the network entity to: receive, from the UE, a security mode complete message that indicates an AEAD algorithm and an AEAD mode used by the UE; de-cipher and check integrity protection applied to the security mode complete message using the generated AEAD key and the indicated AEAD algorithm and AEAD mode; and activate downlink ciphering with the UE using the security context (de-ciphering and checking the integrity of the received security mode compete message using the key and algorithm indicated in the security mode command message and activating the downlink ciphering after receiving the security mode complete message. Nair ¶ 91.).
Regarding claim 15, Nair discloses the limitations of claim 9, wherein the network entity is: an access and mobility function (AMF), a non-access stratum (NAS) termination point function, or a control plane termination point (Nair Figure 5, elements 212 and 512, and ¶ 90.).
Regarding claim 16, Inamdar in view of Nair discloses the limitations of claim 9, wherein the network entity is a radio access network (RAN) node (Nair ¶¶ 77–78.).
Regarding claim 19, Nair discloses: a radio access network (RAN) node for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the RAN node to: transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a radio resource control (RRC) connection reconfiguration message that contains an indication of an authenticated encryption with associated data (AEAD) mode for activation of user plane (UP) integrity protection or ciphering for data radio bearer (DRB) additions during an RRC reconfiguration procedure (network RAN communicates an AS Security Mode message 514 to the UE after NAS configuration message 511, containing the selected AS integrity algorithm and AS ciphering algorithm and the message authentication code. Nair ¶ 77–78 and 92–95. The AS configuration message activates the UP and ciphering for DRB in the RRC procedure. Nair ¶ 92 and 96.); initiate, for each DRB, uplink UP integrity verification and downlink UP integrity protection using the AEAD mode; and initiate, for each DRB, uplink UP deciphering and downlink UP ciphering using the AEAD mode (the UP integrity protection are activated for DRBs belonging to the PDU session. Nair ¶¶ 92, 95–97, and 106. AS algorithms can be combined algorithms including from a list of AEAD algorithms. Nair ¶ 117.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Imandar (US 2019/0243980 A1, published Aug. 8, 2019), setting up a secure transaction between a client device and another network device, shared secure connection data includes details about the secure connection such as a timestamp of the transaction, identifier of the peer with whom the connection is to be established, the shared data includes the final selected Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD)-based key derivation function of the session; Lee (US 2025/0056216 A1, published Feb. 13, 2025), NAS security mode command establishes the security context in a wireless TLS protocol environment; Sharma (US 2015/0365822 A1, published Dec. 17, 2015), setting up a secure wireless connection by sharing a security mode command with RRC and UP security context data; Bracken (US 2024/0031408 A1, published Jan. 25, 2024), determining a prioritized list of compatible cipher suites available; McGrew (US 8,356,177 B2, issued Jan. 15, 2013), AEAD algorithms including AES-based ciphers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE M LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights