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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Applications No. EP22190146.5, EP22190185.3, EP22190179.6, EP22190152.3, EP22190117.6, EP22190191.1, EP22190162.2, EP22190129.1, EP22190133.3, EP22190140.8, and EP22190168.9, filed on August 12, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 4, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
However, the non-patent literature of “TR 23.700-33: kl#1, New Solution: U2U relay support” by Qualcomm Incorporated, and “SPAKE2+: an Augmented PAKE (Draft)” by Taubert, T. et al., have been crossed out in the IDS as the references were not included in the application at the time of filing in this application. All other references have been considered.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 1 is described as “Fig. 1 shows an example of a PBKDF2 algorithm for the derivation of master keys from passwords, which uses a keyed-hash message authentication code or hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) with Secured Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA-1) as PRF”, in page 1 of the Specification.
Figure 2 is described as “Fig. 2 shows a signaling diagram of a message exchange between two devices A and B that includes a specific augmented PAKE process (called "SPAKE2+") as described in Taubert, T. et al.: "SPAKE2+, an Augmented PAKE (Draft)"”, in page 2 of the Specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device”, “the apparatus being arranged: to receive a message including an indication on a security establishment procedure (SEP) and/or a security parameter (SP) to use from the first device”, and “the apparatus being arranged: to perform an evaluation of whether the indicated SEP and/or SP can be used” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-19 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 limitations “an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device”, “the apparatus being arranged: to receive a message including an indication on a security establishment procedure (SEP) and/or a security parameter (SP) to use from the first device”, and “the apparatus being arranged: to perform an evaluation of whether the indicated SEP and/or SP can be used” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of negotiation that takes into account security policies provisioned at the UEs and the coverage status of said UEs in Fig. 21, either directly or through a UE-to-UE relay, as described in page 35 of the Specification. However, there is no structure provided in Fig. 21 as to how the negotiation is performed, either explicitly or implicitly, including as to what types of communications are utilized and what hardware components send the request message to begin the negotiation. Negotiation refers to initiating communication between two devices by sending a request message from a first device to a second device, and a response is sent to the first device from the second device to establish secure communications, preferably with network components on the user devices. Furthermore, how the SEPs (security establishment procedures) or SPs (security parameters) are in the request message that initiates negotiation is not sufficiently described in the Specification, such as the “PBKDF plus SPAKE2+” protocols for the SEPs, in page 16 of the Specification. SPs are utilized in the request message in Fig. 21 in the Specification, such as passwords or cryptographic keys in steps 2103-2105, described in page 31 of the Specification, but how the negotiation determines the SPs being utilized in the request message lacks structure, as the apparatus handling negotiation between 2 devices/UEs lacks structure. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which negotiation structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The term “and/or” in claims 1-2, 5-7, 13-14, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “and/or” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term “and/or” presents ambiguity in the limitations of the claims as to whether or not certain elements are required in the claimed limitations of the application.
Claims 2-19 depend on the limitations present in independent claim 1, and as a result, inherit the rejections under 112(b) for claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of negotiating between devices in a network, either directly or through a UE-to-UE relay, in claim 1. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-19 depend on the limitations present in independent claim 1, and as a result, inherit the rejections under 112(a) for claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 1-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP et al., (NPL, “3GPP TS 33.536 V17.1.0 (2022-06), 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Security aspects of 3GPP support for advanced Vehicle-to- Everything (V2X) services (Release 17)"), hereinafter “3GPP”, in view of Kuo et al. (US 20210410214 A1), hereinafter “Kuo”.
Regarding claim 1, 3GPP discloses “an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device, the apparatus being arranged: to receive a message including an indication on a security establishment procedure (SEP) and/or a security parameters (SP) to use from the first device, said SEP and/or SP being arranged to be used to establish a secure link between the first and a second device, and an indication whether the SEP and/or the SP is an in-coverage SEP and/or in-coverage SP or an out-of-coverage SEP and/or out-of-coverage SP” (Page 14, Figure 5.3.3.1.4.3-1, titled "Security establishment at connection set-up", and shows the process of establishing security during a connection of two UE devices. Step 1 of the figure shows a request, with "UE_1 security capabilities" included in the request. Step 2 in the figure shows a direct authorization and key establishment of the two UE devices.);
“and the out-of-coverage SEP and/or the out-of-coverage SP is used without network assistance and wherein the use of the out-of-coverage SEP and/or the out-of-coverage SP allows establishment of the secure link between the first and second devices without relying on the third device” (As shown in the figure "Security establishment at connection set-up" in page 14, two devices are directly connected after the request for direct communication is established, with no third device present, corresponding to an out-of-coverage SEP.);
“and to perform an evaluation of whether the indicated SEP and/or SP can be used” (Step 2 of the figure states that "UE_2 shall reject the Direct Communication Request if UE_1's signalling security policy is "NOT NEEDED" while UE_2's security policy is "REQUIRED". UE 2 shall also reject the Direct Communication Request if UE 1's signalling security policy is "REQUIRED" while UE_2's security policy is "NOT NEEDED", and if both security policies match, the connection is established for the two devices.);
3GPP does not appear to disclose, but Kuo teaches “wherein the in-coverage SEP and/or the in-coverage SP is used with network assistance and the wherein use of the in-coverage SEP and/or the in-coverage SP relies on a third device to establish the secure link between the first and second devices, wherein the third device is arranged to provide core network assistance,” ([0022] and [0448] Fig. 17 has UE1 and UE2 connected via a relay, which acts as a third device to provide network assistance, and supports data communication between the two UE devices in the event they cannot communicate directly.);
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of "wherein the in-coverage SEP and/or the in-coverage SP is used with network assistance and the wherein use of the in-coverage SEP and/or the in-coverage SP relies on a third device to establish the secure link between the first and second devices, wherein the third device is arranged to provide core network assistance" in an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to connect two UE devices by using the UE-to-UE relay to support sidelink communications and capability information of the two UEs, and combine the sidelink information without communicating to a base station, and simply use the relay UE to forward the communication between the two UEs performing sidelinking, as shown in Fig. 17 as well. (Kuo [0453]).
Regarding claim 2, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP also discloses “arranged to receive an initial configuration containing the supported and/or preferred SEPs, the initial configuration being used in the evaluation” (Step 1 of the figure in page 14 shows a request, with "UE_1 security capabilities" included in the request.).
Regarding claim 3, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP also discloses “adapted to process the received indication and send a subsequent message determined by a positive or negative evaluation of the received indication” (Step 2 in the figure in page 14 shows a direct authorization and key establishment of the two UE devices, which is based on positive evaluation of the direct communication request.).
Regarding claim 4, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 3 above. 3GPP also discloses “wherein the subsequent message is sent to the first or a third device based on the policy evaluation” (As shown in the figure "Security establishment at connection set-up" in page 14, two devices are directly connected after the request for direct communication is established, equating to subsequent message sent to the first device.).
Regarding claim 5, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP also discloses “wherein the indication of the SEP and/or security parameters to use is signaled in a discovery message” (Step 1 of the figure in page 14 shows a request, with "UE_1 security capabilities" included in the request.).
Regarding claim 6, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP also discloses “wherein the indication of the SEP and/or security parameters to use is signaled in a DCR message” (Step 1 of the figure in page 14 is a direct communication request (DCR).).
Regarding claim 7, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP also discloses “wherein the indication on the SEP and/or security parameters to use is implicit in the usage of a specific service” (In the section 5.3.3.1.4.2.3. "Security policy handling", in pages 12-13, it is stated that the connection between devices is performed to provide security to the V2X (vehicle-to-everything) services when the security policy is utilized.).
Regarding claim 8, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP also discloses “wherein if the apparatus receives an indication for a SEP that it does not support, the apparatus is configured to send a mismatch indication indicating to the first device the supported/preferred SEP” (Step 2 of the figure in page 14 states that "UE_2 shall reject the Direct Communication Request if UE_1's signaling security policy is "NOT NEEDED" while UE_2's security policy is "REQUIRED"", with the rejection message is sent to the UE_1 when the security policies are not equal.).
Regarding claim 9, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP also discloses “wherein if the apparatus receives an indication for a SEP that it does not support, the apparatus is configured to ignore the message with said indication” (Section 5.3.3.1.4.5, "Security establishment for user plane bearers", in page 16, it is stated that both UEs ensure that the user plane for each V2X service is sent or received on the user plane with the necessary security when required, which is dropped/ignored if received with incorrect security permissions or parameters.).
Regarding claim 10, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. Kuo teaches the limitation of “wherein, if the apparatus receives an indication for an in-coverage SEP and an indication for an out-of-coverage SEP, the apparatus is configured to select a SEP and only respond to a discovery message according to the preferred indication” (As described in paragraphs [0381], Fig. 14 contains a relay_indication value which can be set to either “0” for a direct communication between the devices, or “1” for a relay communication, as described in paragraphs [0383]-[0384]. UE2 chooses the connection type based on the local and operator policies, such as directly to UE1, as described in paragraph [0378].).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of "wherein, if the apparatus receives an indication for an in-coverage SEP and an indication for an out-of-coverage SEP, the apparatus is configured to select a SEP and only respond to a discovery message according to the preferred indication" in an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a choice as to whether the relay should be utilized based on the ‘relay_indication’ field provided in the direct communication request provided from one UE device to another, along with other policies provided in the request (Kuo [0377]-[0378]).
Regarding claim 11, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 10 above. Kuo teaches the limitation of “wherein if the apparatus receives an indication for an in-coverage SEP and an indication for an out-of-coverage SEP, the apparatus is configured to select the SEP with network assistance and send a DCR message including the (relay) service code bound to a SEP with network assistance” ([0379] Target UE, UE2, chooses the connection based on the policies described, including choosing specific UE-UE relays, where the relays provide network assistance.).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of "wherein if the apparatus receives an indication for an in-coverage SEP and an indication for an out-of-coverage SEP, the apparatus is configured to select the SEP with network assistance and send a DCR message including the (relay) service code bound to a SEP with network assistance" in an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a choice as to whether the relay should be utilized based on the ‘relay_indication’ field provided in the direct communication request provided from one UE device to another, along with other policies provided in the request (Kuo [0377]-[0378]).
Regarding claim 12, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP also discloses “wherein the SEP selection is temporary, and the apparatus requires the reestablishment of the security link by means of a different SEP once a condition applies wherein the condition may refer to a change in the coverage status of the apparatus” (In figure 5.3.3.1.4.4-1, "Security establishment during rekeying" in page 16, step 1 is a "re-keying request", which allows for refreshing of keys K_NRP, with either UE triggering the re-keying at any time. The re-keying operating enforces a refresh of the keys, corresponding to change in coverage status of the apparatus.).
Regarding claim 13, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP also discloses “monitor and/or report a security connection being established or established to a first communication device” (Steps 2 and 3 of the figure in page 16 is the same as steps 2 and 3 of the figure in page 14; Step 2 of the figure states that "UE_2 shall reject the Direct Communication Request if UE_1's signaling security policy is "NOT NEEDED" while UE_2's security policy is "REQUIRED". UE 2 shall also reject the Direct Communication Request if UE 1's signaling security policy is "REQUIRED" while UE 2's security policy is "NOT NEEDED".),
and “receive a command from the first communication device determining whether the connection is still allowed, or disallowed, or to be reestablished requiring a different SEP” (Step 4 has UE_1 checking the security establishment connection to determine if it will proceed with the response provided by UE_2. It is the same between the figures in page 14 and page 16.).
Regarding claim 18, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP also discloses “a UE configured to act as an end-UE and comprising an apparatus according to claim 1” (UE_2 in the figure of page 14 is an end-UE in the apparatus in claim 1.).
Regarding claim 19, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 13 above. Kuo teaches “a UE configured to be able to act as a UE-to-UE relay and/or an UE-to-Network relay comprising an apparatus according to claim 1” ([0022] and [0448] Fig. 17 has UE1 and UE2 connected via a relay, which acts as a third device to provide network assistance.).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of "a UE configured to be able to act as a UE-to-UE relay and/or an UE-to-Network relay comprising an apparatus according to claim 1" in an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a choice as to whether the relay should be utilized based on the ‘relay_indication’ field provided in the direct communication request provided from one UE device to another, along with other policies provided in the request (Kuo [0377]-[0378]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Kuo as applied to claims 1-13 above, and further in view of Du et al. (US 20240365264 A1).
Regarding claim 14, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 1 above. 3GPP and Kuo do not appear to teach or suggest, but Du teaches “wherein the message also indicates the establishment of an emergency connection, and the apparatus is adapted to: send a message to the network to establish an emergency connection and/or, broadcast a local message to another local device to establish a communication link, wherein the establishment of the emergency communication links allows the usage of null ciphering and/or integrity algorithms” ([0027] Fig. 2, in emergency scenarios such as an earthquake, the range of the network is to be extended, and allows communication with other UEs.);
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of "wherein the message also indicates the establishment of an emergency connection, and the apparatus is adapted to: send a message to the network to establish an emergency connection and/or, broadcast a local message to another local device to establish a communication link, wherein the establishment of the emergency communication links allows the usage of null ciphering and/or integrity algorithms" in an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow for UE devices to communicate with each other, and depending on the modes and fields configured, allow each UE to act as a relay to further extend the reach of the network to assist others in the event of a natural disaster or other type of emergency (Du [0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 15, 3GPP in view of Kuo teaches the limitations present in claim 14 above. Du teaches “wherein the apparatus receives an emergency message from the first device” ([0027] UE4 receives the emergency message from UE3, as shown in mode 2 in Fig. 2 via UE5.).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of "wherein the apparatus receives an emergency message from the first device" in an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would be understand that, depending on the modes and fields configured, allow each UE to act as a relay to further extend the reach of the network to assist others in the event of a natural disaster or other type of emergency (Du [0026]-[0027]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Kuo, further in view of Du as applied to claims 14-15 above, and yet further in view of Nasir et al. (US 20150044983 A1).
Regarding claim 16, 3GPP in view of Kuo, and further in view of Du teaches the limitations present in claim 14 above. 3GPP in view of Kuo, and further in view of Du does not appear to teach or suggest, but Nasir teaches the limitation of “wherein the apparatus is configured to log the emergency requests received” ([0017] Fig. 1, where after users upload emergency messages, said messages are received by the communications tower, and are forwarded to an emergency message storage location in a communication network.).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of "wherein the apparatus is configured to log the emergency requests received" in an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow other devices and authorities, including authorized emergency personnel to retrieve the messages stored in the emergency message storage, and challenge codes are included to prevent terrorists from using applications to launch attacks on the storage service (Nasir [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, 3GPP in view of Kuo, and further in view of Du, and yet further in view of Nasir teaches the limitations present in claim 16 above. Nasir also teaches “wherein the apparatus forwards the received emergency message to a local device or to the network” ([0017] Fig. 1, emergency messages are forwarded to an emergency message storage location in a communication network).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of "wherein the apparatus forwards the received emergency message to a local device or to the network" in an apparatus arranged to negotiate a procedure to establish a secure link with a first device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow other devices and authorities, including authorized emergency personnel to retrieve the messages stored in the emergency message storage (Nasir [0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nair et al. (US 20210234706 A1, “NETWORK FUNCTION AUTHENTICATION BASED ON PUBLIC KEY BINDING IN ACCESS TOKEN IN A COMMUNICATION SYSTEM”)
Parvataneni et al. (US 20210160314 A1, “EDGE COMPUTING FOR INTERNET OF THINGS SECURITY WITH BLOCKCHAIN AUTHENTICATION”)
Wong et al. (US 20170126682 A1, “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURE PROVISIONING OF OUT-OF-NETWORK USER EQUIPMENT”)
Li et al. (US 20190320320 A1, “METHOD AND DEVICE FOR VERIFYING KEY REQUESTER”)
Calegj et al. (NPL, “Key Agreement in Peer-to-Peer Wireless Networks”, 2006)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOMMY MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-4PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571) 272-7624, on Monday thru Friday 7AM-7PM ET. 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.
/T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights