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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-13 are pending
Priority
This application claims the priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. 371 of International Patent Application No. European Patent Application No. 22190117.6, filed on August 12, 2022. All priority documents have been received. Therefore, the effective filing date of this application is 08/12/2022
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Drawings
Applicants’ drawings filed on 02/05/2025 has been inspected and it is in compliance with
MPEP 608.02.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
No double patenting rejection warranted at the time of this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 recite of the acronym “QR code” without spelling it out in the first instance. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “quick-response (QR) code”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites of the acronym “AKMA” without spelling it out in the first instance. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AKMA)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 recites the limitation “the security establishment protocol is one of SPAKE, SPAKE+ or DPP.” Examiner suggests adding a comma before “or DPP”. Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “the security establishment protocol is one of SPAKE, SPAKE+, or DPP.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites of the acronym “SPAKE” without spelling it out in the first instance. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “Simple Password-Authenticated Key Exchange (SPAKE)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites of the acronym “SPAKE+” without spelling it out in the first instance. Furthermore, the specification does not recite of “SPAKE+” rather the specification recites of “SPAKE2+” For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “Simple Password-Authenticated Key Exchange 2+ (SPAKE2+)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites of the acronym “DPP” without spelling it out in the first instance. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites of the acronym “AAA server” without spelling it out in the first instance. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “Authentication Authorization Accounting (AAA) server”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 recite of the acronym “IoT” without spelling it out in the first instance. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “Internet of Things (IoT)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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:
“apparatus for … apparatus being adapted to: perform a security establishment protocol (SEP)” in claim 1
“apparatus being adapted to: … route an authentication message” in claim 1
“apparatus being adapted to: … receive a configuration” in claim 1
“The apparatus … adapted to scan a QR code” in claim 2
“The apparatus … adapted to receive a first configuration” in claim 3
“The apparatus … adapted to authenticate” in claim 4
“A user device implementing” in claim 11
Because these claim limitation(s) 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.
See specification [page 3 lines 15-19] for hardware support for apparatus
See specification [page 58 lines 36-37 and page 59 lines 1-6] for hardware support for user device
See specification [page 46 lines 3-7] for functional support for “apparatus for … apparatus being adapted to: perform a security establishment protocol (SEP)”
See specification [page 56 lines 3-6] for functional support for “apparatus being adapted to: … route an authentication message”
See specification [page 56 lines 7-10] for functional support for “apparatus being adapted to: … receive a configuration”
See specification para. [page 14 lines 37, page 15 lines 1-3] for functional support for “The apparatus … adapted to scan a QR code”
See specification para. [page 14 lines 37, page 15 lines 1-3] for functional support for “The apparatus … adapted to receive a first configuration”
See specification [page 52 lines 6-10 and 21-22] for functional support for “The apparatus … adapted to authenticate”
See specification [page 55 lines 32-36] for functional support for “A user device implementing”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) 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 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 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
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.
Claims 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite of the last limitation “receive …” without reciting “and” before the last limitation. It is unclear if all the limitations are performed. Examiner suggests reciting “and” before the last limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11 and 13 depend on claims 1 and 12. Therefore, they also inherit the rejection.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation " the initial establishment ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “an initial establishment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11 and 13 depend on claims 1 and 12. Therefore, they also inherit the rejection.
Claim 3 recites of the limitation “a third communication device”. However, claim 1 already recites of “a third communication device”. It is unclear if the third communication device in claim 3 is the same or different. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “the third communication device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 also inherits the rejection.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the QR code". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “a QR code”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 also inherits the rejection.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the reception". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “the receiving”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation " the authentication messages". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only recites of routing a single authentication message not a plurality of authentication messages. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “the authentication message”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “involves the routing of an authentication procedure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only recites of routing an authentication message not of an authentication procedure. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “involves routing of an authentication procedure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 also inherits the rejection.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the third communication devices". There is insufficient antecedent basis for a plurality of third communication devices. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “the third communication device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 also inherits the rejection.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the second configuration". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “the configuration”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the access rights". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “access rights”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the first configuration". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “a first configuration”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " a type of second communication device" and “a second communication device”. It is unclear if this second communication device is the same one recited in claim 1 or different. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “a type of the second communication device” and “the second communication device” to refer to the same second communication device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the local network". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “a local network”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the personal IoT network". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “a personal IoT network”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " second communication devices". There is insufficient antecedent basis for the plurality of second communication devices. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “the second communication device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the authorization". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “authorization”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the apparatuses". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “the apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 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 it is directed towards software per se.
Claims 1, 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1 satisfies the statutory category requirement because it is directed to an apparatus under 35 U.S.C. 101(a).
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Judicial Exception (Abstract Area)
The claim recites of an apparatus for secure communication, the apparatus being adapted to: perform a security establishment protocol (SEP) with a second communication device allowing the initial establishment of a secure and authenticated channel with the second communication device through a first communication link, route an authentication message of the second communication device to a third communication device through a second cellular backhaul communication link, receive a configuration from the third communication device for the second communication device.
The limitation of an apparatus for secure communication, the apparatus being adapted to: perform a security establishment protocol (SEP) with a second communication device allowing the initial establishment of a secure and authenticated channel with the second communication device through a first communication link, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the mind. A user can manually establish a secure and authenticated channel with a second device through a first communication link.
The limitation of route an authentication message of the second communication device to a third communication device through a second cellular backhaul communication link, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the mind. A user can manually route an authentication message of the second communication device to a third communication device.
The limitation of receive a configuration from the third communication device for the second communication device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the mind. A user can manually receive a configuration from the third communication device for the second communication device.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Integration into a practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites of performing security establishment protocol, routing an authentication message, and receiving configuration. However, merely receiving configuration does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply receiving data does not overcome the abstract idea.
Step 2B- “Significantly More” (Inventive concept)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element of “apparatus” recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic apparatus implementing the method) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic apparatus. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic apparatus cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of receive a first configuration from a third communication device after scanning the QR code. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually receive a first configuration from a third communication device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of authenticate to the third communication device by means of AKMA prior to the reception of the first configuration. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually authenticate to the third communication device by means of AKMA.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the security establishment protocol is one of SPAKE, SPAKE+ or DPP. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine the security establishment protocol is one of SPAKE, SPAKE+ or DPP.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein prior the security establishment protocol a Wi-Fi or Thread communication channel is established. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually establish a Wi-Fi or Thread communication channel.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the routing of the authentication messages involves the routing of an authentication procedure between the second and the third communication devices and blocks any further communication. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually route authentication messages and block further communication.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the authentication messages are exchanged with an AAA server. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually exchange messages with an AAA server.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the second configuration includes a policy determining the access rights of the second communication device to at least one of: accessing a local network managed by the apparatus, accessing a personal IoT network management by the apparatus comprising at least one local network, accessing the second cellular backhaul communication link, communicating with a fourth device connected to the apparatus through a cellular communication link in the personal IoT network. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine a second configuration includes a policy determining the access rights of the second communication device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the first configuration includes at least one of: a type of second communication device that is allowed to join the local network, a type of the second communication device that is allowed to join the personal IoT network, a type of interaction between the second communication devices that is authorized, a condition under which an interaction or communication is authorized, a type of allowed lower layer that a second communication device can use in local network or personal IoT network managed by the apparatus, an identity of a second communication devices that is allowed to join the local network or personal IoT network, a type of authorized authentication procedure based on a scope, wherein the scope is one of local or end-to-end, a type of security protocol to support the authorization of the second communication device, - credentials to verify an authorized second communication device. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine information regarding a first configuration.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 11 satisfies the statutory category requirement because it is directed to a user device under 35 U.S.C. 101(a).
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites of a user device that implements the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, a similar Step 2A, Prong 1, Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B analysis as seen for claim 1 applies.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 12 satisfies the statutory category requirement because it is directed to a method under 35 U.S.C. 101(a).
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites of a method that recited features similar to that of apparatus claim 1. Therefore, a similar Step 2A, Prong 1, Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B analysis as seen for claim 1 applies.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 13 does not satisfy the statutory category requirement because it is directed towards software per se.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites of a computer program which when executed by a computer performs the method of claim 12. Therefore, a similar Step 2A, Prong 1, Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B analysis as seen for claims 1 and 12 applies.
The dependent claims 3-10 are directed to abstract ideas and do not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This
judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are not
patent eligible.
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 1-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN (US-20210385778-A1) in view of MARUPADUGA (US-11240748-B1), hereinafter AHN-MARUPADUGA.
Regarding claim 1, AHN teaches “An apparatus for secure communication, the apparatus being adapted to: perform a security establishment protocol (SEP) with a second communication device allowing the initial establishment of a secure and authenticated channel with the second communication device through a first communication link, ([AHN, para. 0019] “The processor may be configured to initiate a security process for the DPP to establish a secured link between the controller and the enrollee when the enrollee onboards to the multiple access point network”) ([AHN, para. 0076] “when a new MAP device attempts to enroll in the MAP network, an existing MAP device connected to the MAP network may configure a backhaul link with the new MAP device. In this case, the existing MAP device may configure a backhaul link with the new MAP device in a reliable manner without receiving a user's input of separate information related to security. Specifically, the existing MAP device may transfer information required for MAP network configuration to the new MAP device through the backhaul link.”) ([AHN, para. 0082] “The enrollee nA and the existing MAP agent eA are connected through a wireless LAN or Ethernet link, and the existing MAP agent eA is connected to the MAP controller through the wireless LAN or Ethernet link. In addition, the existing MAP agent eA transmits and receives messages related to onboarding to and from the MAP controller through a link configured through the IEEE 1905.1 protocol.”) ([AHN, para. 0084] “The existing MAP agent eA and the enrollee nA may exchange an authentication request frame, an authentication response frame, an association request frame, and an association response frame with each other. … The existing MAP agent eA and the enrollee nA may recognize that the event is related to MAP onboarding based on the Multi-AP extension subelement, and perform the MAP onboarding process. “) route an authentication message of the second communication device to a third communication device through a second [cellular backhaul] communication link, ([AHN, para. 0090] “When the enrollee nA receives the DPP authentication request, the enrollee nA transmits a DPP authentication response. The MAP agent eA that has transmitted the DPP authentication response from the enrollee nA may encapsulate the DPP authentication response in the 1905 message format and may transmit the DPP authentication response to the MAP controller. The MAP controller may receive the DPP authentication response from the MAP agent eA, and may transmit a DPP authentication confirmation to the enrollee nA in a manner in which the DPP authentication request is transmitted. The DPP authentication may be completed through this process.”) ([AHN, para. 0160] “Although the present disclosure has been described by using wireless LAN communication as an example, the present disclosure is not limited thereto and may be equally applied to other communication systems such as cellular communication.”) receive a configuration from the third communication device for the second communication device. ([AHN, para. 0124] “When the enrollee proceeds with DPP configuration after the onboarding, the enrollee transmits the DPP configuration request to the MAP agent. … The MAP agent that has received the DPP configuration request encapsulates the DPP configuration request in the 1905 format, and forwards the encapsulated DPP configuration request to the MAP controller.”) ([AHN, para. 0125] “The MAP controller generates the connector based on the received configuration object. The MAP controller transmits a DPP configuration response including the connector to the MAP agent. In this case, the MAP controller may encapsulate the DPP configuration response in the 1905 format.”) ([AHN, para. 0127] “The multi-AP extension may include information on a channel of a backhaul BSS operated by the MAP agent connected to the MAP controller. The MAP agent that forwards the DPP authentication response may insert the Multi-AP extension into the frame including the DPP configuration response as a subelement.”) ([AHN, para. 0128] “The enrollee that has received the DPP configuration response installs the connector.”)
However, AHN does not teach “route an authentication message … through a second cellular backhaul communication link”.
In analogous teaching MARUPADUGA teaches “route an authentication message … through a second cellular backhaul communication link” ([MARUPADUGA, col. 2 Lines 54-58] “Data com network 141 and access nodes 121-124 and are coupled over respective backhaul links 131-134. Data com network 141 communicates with external systems over data links 151.”) ([MARUPADUGA, col. 3 Lines 30-35] “ Primary access node 121 typically interacts with data com network 141 over backhaul link 131 to authenticate and authorize UE 101 for the multi-frequency data communication service. ”) ([MARUPADUGA, col. 4 Lines 61-65] “ Primary access node 111 wirelessly exchanges user data and network signaling with UE 101 over primary frequency 111. Primary access node 111 exchanges the user data and network signaling with data com network 141 over backhaul link 131. ”) ([MARUPADUGA, col. 3 Lines 16-17] “Primary access node 121 may comprise an LTE access node like an eNodeB.“) ([MARUPADUGA, col. 7 Lines 41-45] “ LTE BBU 431 transfers network signaling that identifies UE 401 over backhaul links 435 to the serving 5GNR BBUs. LTE BBU 431 wirelessly exchanges user data and network signaling with UE 401 over radio 421 and radio frequency 411.”)
Thus, given the teaching of MARUPADUGA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of cellular backhaul communication by MARUPADUGA into the teaching of a method executed by an apparatus for secure communication by AHN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because MARUPADUGA recognizes the need to utilize different communication channels ([MARUPADUGA, col. 1 Lines 45-49 ] “At present, the wireless access nodes do not efficiently and effectively mitigate the intermodulation interference that results from serving the wireless user devices over multiple radio frequencies from the same antenna at the same time.”) ([MARUPADUGA, col. 6 Lines 17-20] “Advantageously, primary access node 121 efficiently and effectively mitigates the intermodulation interference that results from serving UE 101 over radio frequencies 111-114 from the same antenna at the same time.”) ([MARUPADUGA, col. 4 Lines 61-65] “Primary access node 111 exchanges the user data and network signaling with data com network 141 over backhaul link 131. Data com network exchanges the user data with external systems over data links 151. “)
Regarding claim 2, AHN-MARUPADUGA teach all limitations of claim 1. AHN further teaches “scan a QR code prior to performing the security establishment protocol. ([AHN, para. 089] “The DPP is a protocol that configures a secure link between a plurality of MAP devices. A message exchanged between a plurality of MAP devices for a DPP protocol is referred to as a DPP message. … The bootstrap channel represents the channel on which a bootstrap process proceeds. For example, the user device may scan a quick response (QR) code attached to the enrollee nA to obtain the information on the bootstrap from a link indicated by the QR code.”) ([AHN, para. 0154] “For example, the user may scan the QR code of the enrollee nA and transfer the bootstrap information of the enrollee to the MAP controller C. In addition, the enrollee nA may not receive responses from all MAP agents eA that support DPP in the DPP authentication process.”)
Regarding claim 3, AHN-MARUPADUGA teach all limitations of claim 1. AHN further teaches “receive a first configuration from a third communication device after scanning the QR code. ([AHN, para. 0154] “For example, the user may scan the QR code of the enrollee nA and transfer the bootstrap information of the enrollee to the MAP controller C. In addition, the enrollee nA may not receive responses from all MAP agents eA that support DPP in the DPP authentication process.”) ([AHN, para. 0156] “When the MAP controller C obtains the information on the bootstrap public key of the enrollee nA, the MAP controller C may maintain the information on the bootstrap public key of the enrollee nA until DPP authentication is completed … the MAP controller C may start the process for configuring a DPP secured end-to-end link with the enrollee nA. At this time, as described above, the MAP controller C may recognize that the enrollee nA has onboarded to the MAP network by receiving a client association event notification message from the MAP agent eA.”) ([AHN, para. 0157] “In addition, the MAP controller C may transmit the AP-autoconfig response to the AP-autoconfig search transmitted by the enrollee nA and then transmit the DPP authentication request encapsulated in the 1905 format message to the enrollee nA. “)
Regarding claim 4, AHN-MARUPADUGA teach all limitations of claim 3. AHN further teaches “authenticate to the third communication device by means of AKMA prior to the reception of the first configuration. ([AHN, para. 0098] “In addition, the MAP agent eA and the MAP controller C may exchange messages encapsulated in the 1905 format. When the authentication and key management suite (AKM) of the network configured by the MAP controller C is the DPP, the configuration object may include the DPP connector signed by the MAP controller C with a sign key.”) . ([AHN, para. 0089] “The MAP controller C may obtain the information on the bootstrap from the user device and transmit a DPP authentication request to the enrollee nA.”)
Regarding claim 5, AHN-MARUPADUGA teach all limitations of claim 1. AHN further teaches “wherein the security establishment protocol is one of SPAKE, SPAKE+ or DPP. ([AHN, para. 0010] “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, an access point that is an enrollee attempting to enroll in a multiple access point network includes a transmit/receive unit and a processor. The processor is configured to receive a first device provisioning protocol (DPP) message from a controller of the multiple access point network, obtain information on a channel on which a DPP is performed from the first DPP message, and transmits a second DPP message to the controller on a channel indicated by the information on a channel, when the access point onboards to the multiple access point network by using the DPP.”)
Regarding claim 6, AHN-MARUPADUGA teach all limitations of claim 5. AHN further teaches “prior the security establishment protocol a Wi-Fi or Thread communication channel is established. ([AHN, para. 0080] “When a new MAP device, that is, an enrollee, onboards to the MAP network, the enrollee may onboard through a Wi-Fi simple configuration (WSC) method defined by the Wi-Fi Alliance.”) ([AHN, para. 0082] “The enrollee nA and the existing MAP agent eA are connected through a wireless LAN or Ethernet link, and the existing MAP agent eA is connected to the MAP controller through the wireless LAN or Ethernet link. “)
Regarding claim 7, AHN-MARUPADUGA teach all limitations of claim 1. AHN further teaches “wherein the routing of the authentication messages involves the routing of an authentication procedure between the second and the third communication devices and blocks any further communication. ([AHN, para. 0090] “The MAP agent eA that has transmitted the DPP authentication response from the enrollee nA may encapsulate the DPP authentication response in the 1905 message format and may transmit the DPP authentication response to the MAP controller. The MAP controller may receive the DPP authentication response from the MAP agent eA, and may transmit a DPP authentication confirmation to the enrollee nA in a manner in which the DPP authentication request is transmitted. The DPP authentication may be completed through this process.”) ([AHN, para. 0091] “the MAP agent eA that has transmitted the DPP authentication request may wait for reception of the DPP authentication response in the channel through which the DPP authentication request is transmitted from when the DPP authentication request is transmitted until a predetermined time elapses.”) [Examiner’s note: The existing agent only relays data from the new agent to the controller and waits for a response, examiner is interpreting no further communication as a form of blocking further communication.]
Regarding claim 9, AHN-MARUPADUGA teach all limitations of claim 1. AHN further teaches “wherein the second configuration includes a policy determining the access rights of the second communication device to at least one of: accessing a local network managed by the apparatus, accessing a personal IoT network management by the apparatus comprising at least one local network, accessing the second cellular backhaul communication link, communicating with a fourth device connected to the apparatus through a cellular communication link in the personal IoT network. ([AHN, para. 0140] “FIG. 17 shows a configuration object exchanged between the MAP controller and the enrollee such that the enrollee operates as a backhaul AP, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.”) ([AHN, para. 0141] “For convenience of description, the configuration object exchanged between the MAP controller and the enrollee such that the enrollee operates as the backhaul AP is referred to as a backhaul AP configuration object. In addition, among the backhaul AP configuration objects, an object transmitted together with the configuration request is referred to as a backhaul AP configuration request object.”) ([AHN, para. 0160] “Although the present disclosure has been described by using wireless LAN communication as an example, the present disclosure is not limited thereto and may be equally applied to other communication systems such as cellular communication.”) [Examiner’s note: Examiner is interpreting the enrollee becoming a backhaul access point as accessing the second cellular backhaul communication link.]
Regarding claim 10, AHN-MARUPADUGA teach all limitations of claim 1. AHN further teaches “wherein the first configuration includes at least one of: a type of second communication device that is allowed to join the local network, a type of the second communication device that is allowed to join the personal IoT network, a type of interaction between the second communication devices that is authorized, a condition under which an interaction or communication is authorized, a type of allowed lower layer that a second communication device can use in local network or personal IoT network managed by the apparatus, an identity of a second communication devices that is allowed to join the local network or personal IoT network, a type of authorized authentication procedure based on a scope, wherein the scope is one of local or end-to-end, a type of security protocol to support the authorization of the second communication device, credentials to verify an authorized second communication device. ([AHN, para. 0125] “The MAP controller may set AKM of the configuration object to a value indicating the DPP. This is because it is assumed that the MAP agent forwarding the DPP configuration response supports the DPP. In addition, the MAP controller may insert netAcessKey, which is information indicating a private key of the enrollee, into the connector. In addition, the MAP controller may set the netRole of the configuration object to a value indicating a backhaul station of the MAP (Multi-AP bSTA). In addition, the MAP controller may set groupid of the configuration object to a value indicating the backhaul. netAccessKey may be information on a public protocol key of the enrollee generated in the DPP authentication process.”) ([AHN, para. 0126] “Accordingly, the MAP controller may set the backhaul certificate(credential) of the configuration object to a value indicating at least one of the PSK, the SAE, and the DPP (dpp+psk+sae). In this case, the configuration object may include the connector, a password of the PSK, and a password of the SAE”) ([AHN, para. 0140] “FIG. 17 shows a configuration object exchanged between the MAP controller and the enrollee such that the enrollee operates as a backhaul AP, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.”) ([AHN, Figure 17, (B), “Credential Object”]) [Examiner’s note: Examiner is interpreting the credentials listed in the configuration object as credentials to verify an authorized second communication device.]
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites of a user device that implements the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites of a method the performs steps similar to the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected in a similar manner as in the view of claim 1. AHN further teaches “receive at the first communication device a second configuration for the second communication device from the third communication device.” ([AHN, para. 0124] “When the enrollee proceeds with DPP configuration after the onboarding, the enrollee transmits the DPP configuration request to the MAP agent. … The MAP agent that has received the DPP configuration request encapsulates the DPP configuration request in the 1905 format, and forwards the encapsulated DPP configuration request to the MAP controller.”) ([AHN, para. 0125] “The MAP controller generates the connector based on the received configuration object. The MAP controller transmits a DPP configuration response including the connector to the MAP agent. In this case, the MAP controller may encapsulate the DPP configuration response in the 1905 format.”)
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites of a computer program which when executed by a computer performs the method of claim 12. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claim 12.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN-MARUPADUGA in view of GUO (US-20220174497-A1).
Regarding claim 8, AHN-MARUPADUGA teach all limitations of claim 7. However, AHN-MARUPADUGA does not teach “wherein the authentication messages are exchanged with an AAA server.”
In analogous teaching GUO teaches “wherein the authentication messages are exchanged with an AAA server. ([GUO, para. 0559] “S1308. The AMF sends a device authentication request message to the AAA server.”) ([GUO, para. 0560] “The device authentication request message includes device authentication information.”)
Thus, given the teaching of GUO, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of authentication messages exchanged with an AAA server by GUO into the teaching of a method executed by an apparatus for secure communication by AHN-MARUPADUGA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because GUO recognizes the need to improve security in communication ([GUO, para. 0003] “the device 2 may perform a plurality of man-in-the-middle attacks. Consequently, there is a great potential security risk in the communications network. To resolve this problem, a solution is urgently needed in the industry.”) ([GUO, para. 0004] “This application provides a communication method and apparatus, to lower a security risk posed by removal of a SIM card from a communications device, and improve security of a communications network.”) ([GUO, para. 0215] “The device authentication is used to verify an identity of a communications device. The device authentication may also be referred to as device authentication.”)
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s
disclosure.
THIEBAUT (US-20230362637-A1): This prior art teaches of methods, apparatuses, and computer program products for creation of a PCS connection between the remote user equipment (UE) and the relay UE. The remote UE may provide its identifier (e.g., a subscription concealed identifier (SUCI)) to the relay UE and the relay UE may forward this identifier to the network so that the network can authenticate the remote UE. The network may check the authorization of using the relay UE and/or for relaying the remote UE (e.g., both the remote UE and the relay UE may be checked for a configuration that permits the relaying). For the authentication and authorization, the access and mobility management function (AMF) associated with the relay UE may forward the messages between the remote UE and the authentication server function (AUSF) of the remote UE. In this way, certain embodiments described herein may address certain security issues related to relaying a remote UE.
SAROIU (US-20220407890-A1): This prior art teaches of slices of a 5G network may be configured to implement a trust model by which network customers are provided with assurances that slice properties meet agreed-upon criteria specified by customer policy so that slices can be trusted. Illustrative slice properties may pertain to service types, geographic area of operations, and attributes associated with software, firmware, and hardware used in the infrastructure of nodes in a trusted slice. Particular values of the properties describe a slice configuration that may be measured, digested, and attested to the customer to provide assurances that the configuration conforms with the policy. The 5G slice trust model may be implemented as a two-way model in which a slice provider performs checks to verify slice properties while customers ensure that only authenticated and authorized user equipment (UE) will access a trusted slice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFAQ ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at (571) 270-1050. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A./
08/19/2026
/AFAQ ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
