DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The present application, filed on February 05, 2025, is accepted.
Claims 1 – 14 are being considered on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings, filed on February 05, 2025, are accepted.
Specification
The specification, filed on February 05, 2025, is accepted.
Double Patenting
No rejection warranted at application’s initial filling time of filling for a patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “a computer program product comprising code means” is not a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
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.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220369215 A1 to Dees et al., (hereinafter, “Dees”) in view of US 20160127901 A1 to Lee et al., (hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Dees teaches an apparatus for controlling a security establishment process between a first communication device (A) and a second communication device (B) over a transmission link, [Dees, para. 33 discloses the cellular communication system (CCS) comprises a radio access network (RAN) comprising multiple cellular base stations (BS) and a core network (CN). The cellular communication system provides a cellular network that supports network slicing and indirect connections, each network slice providing a logical network using a shared physical infrastructure of the cellular communication system, each indirect connection providing data transfer between a mobile device and the cellular communication system via at least one relay device being a mobile device arranged for communication with the radio access network and capable of supporting the indirect connection.] wherein the apparatus is adapted to: receive from the first communication device (A) a preamble message (Pre_AB) including a security establishment identifier (ID_A); [Dees, para. 34 discloses the mobile device comprises a transceiver arranged for wireless communication in the cellular network, and a connection processor arranged for managing connections to the cellular network, the connection processor providing a relay function (116) for managing at least one indirect connection. The relay function may be arranged—to send a request message (M) to at least one relay device (UEx), the request message including a requested identifier (ID1) indicating a network slice which the mobile device is requesting access to;] and allocate the security establishment identifier (ID_A) received from the first communication device (A) as peer session identifier (401) for subsequent messages; [Dees, para. 62 discloses the request message (M) contains a security context identifier (ID3) indicating a security context or security key, the relay processor being arranged to send the transfer request message (M′) to the cellular communication system in dependence of the request message only if the security context or security key indicated by the security context identifier (ID3) corresponds to a security context or security key which is configured in the relay device], but Dees does not teach wherein the apparatus is further adapted to limit the number of first preamble messages allowed per unit of time.
However, Lee does teach wherein the apparatus is further adapted to limit the number of first preamble messages allowed per unit of time. [Lee, para. 37 discloses during the authentication and the handshake period, the AP 105 may additionally transmit a key interval schedule to the stations 115 that may identify time intervals that the AP 105 may disclose keys associated with transmitted messages. In some examples, the key interval schedule may identify a pre-schedule time interval. The key interval schedule may further include a fine-grained timing using a time stamp function (TSF) that may prevent malicious stations on the network from intercepting disclosed key(s) and/or injected a forged message using the key(s). In some examples, the key interval schedule may comprise a plurality of time intervals that correspond with different MIC keys.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filling date to combine Lee’s system with Dees’s system, with a motivation for the authentication of a message may be based on a determination that the time stamp of the received key corresponds with a previously disclosed key interval schedule. Specifically, in some examples, the AP may disclose to the station(s) an anticipated time interval for key disclosure. The key interval schedule may be exchanged between the AP and at least one station during an authentication and association period. In other examples, the key disclosure schedule may be transmitted to the station(s) during the handshake period. Thus, a station authenticating a received message may first determine whether the time stamp of the received message corresponds with the previously disclosed key interval schedule. [Lee, para. 6]
As per claim 2, modified Dees teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first communication device (A) comprises a commissioning tool configured to use the security establishment process to interact with the second communication device (B) in order to perform at least one selected from the group of commissioning, configuring, authenticating and authorizing. [Dees, para. 33 discloses the cellular communication system (CCS) comprises a radio access network (RAN) comprising multiple cellular base stations (BS) and a core network (CN). The cellular communication system provides a cellular network that supports network slicing and indirect connections, each network slice providing a logical network using a shared physical infrastructure of the cellular communication system, each indirect connection providing data transfer between a mobile device and the cellular communication system via at least one relay device being a mobile device arranged for communication with the radio access network and capable of supporting the indirect connection. The cellular communication system comprising at least one network relay entity arranged to provide a network relay function (NRF) for managing the indirect connections.]
As per claim 3, modified Dees teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second communication device (B) is comprised in a medical device or a personal healthcare device or a smart home device. [Dees, para. 123 discloses a mobile device and a relay device and a network relay entity and a cellular communication network. In a cellular communication system 100, a mobile device 110 is arranged for wireless communication in a cellular communication network 130. The mobile device may, for example, be a mobile phone, a wearable medical device or a data communication unit embedded in a car. The cellular communication system (CCS) may include a radio access network (RAN) comprising multiple cellular base stations (BS) and a core network (CN). The cellular communication system provides a cellular network that supports network slicing and indirect connections.]
Regarding claim 4, modified Dees teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but Dees does not teach wherein the apparatus is configured to run a password authenticated key exchange protocol to mutually authenticate the first and second communication devices (A, B) to each other and establish a secret.
However, Lee does teach wherein the apparatus is configured to run a password authenticated key exchange protocol to mutually authenticate the first and second communication devices (A, B) to each other and establish a secret. [Lee, para. 32 discloses the key interval schedule may be exchanged between the AP and at least one station during an authentication and association period. In other examples, the key disclosure schedule may be transmitted to the station(s) during the handshake period. Thus, a station authenticating a received message may first determine whether the time stamp of the received message corresponds with the previously disclosed key interval schedule. As a result, the station may verify whether the message was transmitted from an authorized AP or a malicious wireless device (e.g., unauthorized stations) on the network.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filling date to combine Lee’s system with Dees’s system, with a motivation for the authentication of a message may be based on a determination that the time stamp of the received key corresponds with a previously disclosed key interval schedule. Specifically, in some examples, the AP may disclose to the station(s) an anticipated time interval for key disclosure. The key interval schedule may be exchanged between the AP and at least one station during an authentication and association period. In other examples, the key disclosure schedule may be transmitted to the station(s) during the handshake period. Thus, a station authenticating a received message may first determine whether the time stamp of the received message corresponds with the previously disclosed key interval schedule. [Lee, para. 6]
As per claim 5, modified Dees teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein preamble messages are exchanged between the first and second communication devices (A, B) or between the first communication device (A) or the second communication device (B) and a relay device in an initial device discovery phase. [Dees, para. 34 discloses the mobile device comprises a transceiver arranged for wireless communication in the cellular network, and a connection processor arranged for managing connections to the cellular network, the connection processor providing a relay function (116) for managing at least one indirect connection. The relay function may be arranged—to send a request message (M) to at least one relay device (UEx), the request message including a requested identifier (ID1) indicating a network slice which the mobile device is requesting access to;]
As per claim 6, modified Dees teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a single preamble message is exchanged between the first and second communication devices (A, B). [Dees, para. 34 discloses the mobile device comprises a transceiver arranged for wireless communication in the cellular network, and a connection processor arranged for managing connections to the cellular network, the connection processor providing a relay function (116) for managing at least one indirect connection. The relay function may be arranged—to send a request message (M) to at least one relay device (UEx), the request message including a requested identifier (ID1) indicating a network slice which the mobile device is requesting access to;]
As per claim 7, modified Dees teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a content of a preamble message is included in a discovery message and wherein the first security establishment message is included in a direct communication request message. [Dees, para. 208 discloses possible contents of request message (M) with the requested network slice identifier may be the following. When a requesting UE originates the request message as further sent to NRF, as part of the registration procedure, the message may include a source address or identifier of the mobile device, i.e. the UE itself. The request message may also include QoS requirements, or sets of requested QoS, e.g. a preferred set and an alternative fallback set. It may also contain information about relay UEs in the area that was obtained during the original relay UE discovery process, such as signal strength. Alternatively, this information could be included in the transfer request message (M′) by the relay device, or the selected relay devices, for the indirect connection and/or by the base station when forwarding the messages from the UE to the core network. Or alternatively, the NRF may request this information and additional relevant information from the RAN, AMF or other network functions, as described earlier.]
Regarding claim 8, modified Dees teaches the apparatus of claim 6, but Dees does not teach wherein the apparatus is further adapted to run a password authenticated key exchange protocol to mutually authenticate the first and second communication devices (A, B) to each other and establish a secret over a first wireless communication protocol and authorize the first communication device (A) to access communication resources of a second communication link.
However, Lee does teach wherein the apparatus is further adapted to run a password authenticated key exchange protocol to mutually authenticate the first and second communication devices (A, B) to each other and establish a secret over a first wireless communication protocol [Lee, para. 32 discloses the key interval schedule may be exchanged between the AP and at least one station during an authentication and association period. In other examples, the key disclosure schedule may be transmitted to the station(s) during the handshake period. Thus, a station authenticating a received message may first determine whether the time stamp of the received message corresponds with the previously disclosed key interval schedule. As a result, the station may verify whether the message was transmitted from an authorized AP or a malicious wireless device (e.g., unauthorized stations) on the network.] and authorize the first communication device (A) to access communication resources of a second communication link. [Lee, para. 38 discloses the station 115-a upon receiving the first message during the first time period from the AP 105 may wait a pre-determined time period for a subsequent message containing the MIC key to authenticate the first message. In accordance with the present disclosure, although the AP 105 may use key (K.sub.i) to create the MIC for the first message, the AP 105 may disclose key (K.sub.j) to the STA 115-a during the subsequent message. Upon receiving the disclosed key (K.sub.j), the STA 115-a may perform a series of hash functions on the disclosed (K.sub.j) to derive at key (K.sub.i) originally used to create the MIC for the first message.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filling date to combine Lee’s system with Dees’s system, with a motivation for the authentication of a message may be based on a determination that the time stamp of the received key corresponds with a previously disclosed key interval schedule. Specifically, in some examples, the AP may disclose to the station(s) an anticipated time interval for key disclosure. The key interval schedule may be exchanged between the AP and at least one station during an authentication and association period. In other examples, the key disclosure schedule may be transmitted to the station(s) during the handshake period. Thus, a station authenticating a received message may first determine whether the time stamp of the received message corresponds with the previously disclosed key interval schedule. [Lee, para. 6]
As per claim 9, modified Dees teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the second communication link uses a cellular communication protocol. [Dees, para. 33 discloses the cellular communication system (CCS) comprises a radio access network (RAN) comprising multiple cellular base stations (BS) and a core network (CN). The cellular communication system provides a cellular network that supports network slicing and indirect connections, each network slice providing a logical network using a shared physical infrastructure of the cellular communication system, each indirect connection providing data transfer between a mobile device and the cellular communication system via at least one relay device being a mobile device arranged for communication with the radio access network and capable of supporting the indirect connection. The cellular communication system comprising at least one network relay entity arranged to provide a network relay function (NRF) for managing the indirect connections.]
Regarding claims 10 – 13, they recite features similar to features within claim 1, therefore, they are rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 14, modified Dees teaches the apparatus of claim 1 adapted to receive from the first communication device (A), in the preamble message, a previous random value (R_B') previously sent to the first communication device (A); [Dees, para. 240 discloses the requesting UE may indicate in its discovery message a security context, or key, C which it supports. This may be a slice-specific security context, or a more general one that is valid for multiple slices, or e.g. a security context for a (third party) defined group of devices, e.g. all medical devices within a hospital or a ProSe application group. The context information may also include a random ID or partial key that can be used by NRF/CN later to derive the complete key to use.] and wherein the allocating of the security establishment identifier (ID_A) is dependent on a random value (R_B) of the second communication device (B) being equal to the previous random value (R_B'). [Dees, para. 141 discloses the message includes an identifier which may be a network slice identifier ID1 which device UE0 is requesting access to. ID1 may be an S-NSSAI (as defined in 3GPP [24.501]) optionally being part of a set of slice identifiers. Alternatively, the message may include a temporary slice identifier (as defined in 3GPP [33.813]) (complete or as a hash value), or an encrypted slice identifier (as defined in 3GPP [33.813]). Note that in such a case, it would be convenient that the core network keeps a list of previous temporary identifiers to see if there is a match, since the remote UE may have been out-of-coverage for a while, and hence the temporary identifier may not be up to date anymore.]
Conclusion
Pertinent prior art made of record however not relied upon:
US 20170134444 A1 to Buckley et al.
“The present disclosure describes methods and systems for establishing a Session Initiation Protocol Session. One method includes transmitting a first message requesting authentication configuration information; in response to the first message, receiving a second message that includes the authentication configuration information; transmitting a third message that includes authentication information based upon the received authentication configuration information; receiving an authentication challenge request that is formatted according to the second protocol; and in response to receiving the authentication challenge request, transmitting an authentication response to the second network node.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phuc Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-8893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM; Friday 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/P.P./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/TECHANE GERGISO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
