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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 18, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,362,959 (“Patent ‘929”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are disclosed by claims of Patent ‘929.
Instant Application
Patent ‘929
1. A method comprising:
during a key failure detection time period associated with a first key, counting, by a node in a mesh network using a failure counter, one or more decryption failures using the first key;
1. A method comprising:
while in a key failure detection time period associated with a first key, detecting, by a node in a mesh network, a decryption failure using the first key;
in response to detecting the decryption failure using the first key, entering, by the node, a key validating blocking period starting from a time of the decryption failure using the first key;
incrementing, by the node, a failure count for the first key;
while in a key update time period and in response to detecting a decryption failure using the first key, determining, by the node, that the failure counter is above a threshold; and
in response to determining that the failure count is above the threshold, transmitting, by the node to a key management service, a request for an update to the first key.
determining, by the node, that the key validating blocking period has elapsed and a key update time period has been entered; and
in response to determining that the failure count is at least a threshold count and a key update time period has been entered, transmitting, by the node to a key management service, a request for an update to the first key.
Instant Application
Patent ‘929
17. A node device in a wireless mesh network, comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
16. A node device in a wireless mesh network, comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
while in a key failure detection time period associated with a first key, incrementing a failure count associated with the first key whenever a failure using the first key occurs;
while in a key failure detection time period associated with a first key, detecting a failure associated with the first key;
based on the detected failure associated with the first key, entering a key validating blocking period starting from a time of the detected failure associated with the first key;
after a key validating blocking period has ended and in response to a second failure using the first key, detect that the failure count is at least a minimum failure count; and
based on detection that the failure count is at least the minimum failure count, transmitting to a key management service, a key update request for the first key.
incrementing a failure count for the first key;
determining that the key validating blocking period has elapsed and a key update time period has been entered; and
based on a determination that the failure count is at least a minimum failure count and a current time permits requesting updates to the first key, transmitting to a key management service, a key update request for the first key.
Claims 2, 4-9 are unpatentable over claims 2, 4-9 of Patent ‘929.
Claims 10-13, 15-16 are unpatentable over claims 10-11, 13-15 of Patent ‘929.
Regarding claim 12, claim 10 of Patent ‘929 discloses, “determining that a key validating blocking period has been entered, wherein the key validating blocking period starts from a time of the failure” and “determining that the key validating blocking period has elapsed and a time period for requesting updates to the first key has been entered.” Claim 10 discloses enabling requests after the validating blocking period elapses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prevented requesting the key during period known as a “key validating blocking period.”
Claims 17-20 are unpatentable over claims 8, 16-18 of Patent ‘929.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. EP 3306853, published April 11, 2018 (“Hara”) in view of Patil et al. US Patent Publication No. 2015/0341447 (“Patil”), Bhattacharya et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0021687 (“Bhattacharya”), Chen US Patent Publication No. 2017/0338950 (“Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Hara teaches a method comprising:
counting, by a node in a network using a failure counter, one or more decryption failures using the first key (para. [0072] counts the total number of times that the decryption fails of using the new key and… the old key. resets the total number of failures when the decryption is successfully performed or when a prescribed time has elapsed since a first or last failure of the decryption. key updater 43… does not perform the reacquisition operation for acquiring a new key if the total number of times… is smaller than the threshold);
in response to detecting a decryption failure using the first key, determining, by the node, that the failure counter is above a threshold; and
in response to determining that the failure count is above the threshold, transmitting, by the node to a key management service, a request for an update to the first key (para. [0076] total number of failures of decryption reaches the threshold… performs the reacquisition operation and acquires the new key to update the encryption key).
Hara does not teach the network is a mesh network.
Hara teaches counting, by a node in a network using a failure counter, one or more decryption failures but not expressly during a key failure detection time period associated with a first key.
Hara teaches determining, by the node, that the failure counter is above a threshold in response to detecting a decryption failure using the first key but not while in a key update time period.
Patil discloses performing encryption/decryption in a mesh network (para. [0033] data path group network may include a wireless mesh network, such as a "social Wi-Fi mesh" network. para. [0047] generate the group key 124, e.g., using an encryption key generation algorithm. use the group key 124 to encrypt and decrypt data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Patil's disclosure of implementing a mesh network. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of enabling Hara's key update for a different type of network, and providing secure and efficient service using ad-hoc wireless network.
Bhattacharya discloses during a key failure detection time period associated with a first key, counting, by a node using a failure counter, one or more decryption failures (para. [0056] rekeying the SA may also involve IKE 251 renegotiating a new encryption/decryption key for the SA. para. [0063] count for the number of decryption failures may be determined over a certain time period). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Bhattacharya's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial to provide additional security rules/policy for determining security risk and obtaining a new encryption/decryption key (para. [0021[0061]).
Chen discloses while in a key update time period, transmitting a request for a key (para. [0117] times allowed to query the random key, and time periods allowed to query the random key. para. [0118] time periods for querying the random key refer to that some random keys can only be queried at certain time periods). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara and Bhattacharya with Chen’s disclosure of implementing a time period that allows for querying of keys, “key update time period,” such that Hara’s determining of the failure count and the request for the key occurs while in the key update time period. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Chen discloses generating rules for restricting queries for the key, and it would have been beneficial to have further controlled querying of the key using rules, which would have improved security.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Patil, Bhattacharya, Chen, and Khatri et al. US Patent Publication No. 2023/0237204 (“Khatri”).
Regarding claim 2, Hara does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the key failure detection time period begins a time period after a first failure associated with the first key has been detected.
Khatri discloses a key failure detection time period begins a time period after a first failure associated with the first key has been detected (para. [0023] initiating a failure timer that begins a count down when an attempt to connect with the key management service (150) fails). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara and Bhattacharya with Khatri’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial to further specify polices for key management and improved security by limiting the period to a time associated with the first failure.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Patil, Bhattacharya, Chen, and Zhang et al. US Patent Publication No. 2006/0133614 (“Zhang”).
Regarding claim 4, Hara does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to receiving the first key, resetting, by the node, the failure counter to zero.
Zhang discloses in response to receiving a key, resetting, by a node, a failure count to zero (para. [0013] new key and decrypts the data frame using the same. access point then resets the old key to be equal to the current key, and resets the out-of-sync counter to zero). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Zhang’s disclosure of resetting, by a node, a failure count to zero. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have tracked failures using the new key.
Regarding claim 8, Hara in view of Patil, Bhattacharya, and Chen teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the node and responsive to the request for the update to the first key, an update to the first key; replacing, by the node, the first key with the update to the first key (Hara: para. [0076] total number of failures of decryption reaches the threshold… performs the reacquisition operation and acquires the new key to update the encryption key. para. [0085] reacquisition operation for acquiring a new key is not performed for a certain time period). Hara does not teach based on the update to the first key, resetting, by the node, the failure count to zero.
Zhang discloses in response to receiving a key, resetting, by a node, a failure count to zero (para. [0013] new key and decrypts the data frame using the same. access point then resets the old key to be equal to the current key, and resets the out-of-sync counter to zero). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Zhang’s disclosure of resetting, by a node, a failure count to zero. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have tracked failures using the new key.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Patil, Bhattacharya, Chen, and De Atley et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0182041 (“De Atley”).
Regarding claim 5, Hara does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the key update time period begins after a key validation blocking period ends, the key validation blocking period begins when the node receives the first key.
De Atley discloses a key update time period that begins after a key validation blocking period ends, the key validation blocking period begins when the node receives the first key (para. [0102] key cannot decrypt the recovered secure object. determines… whether the time out is expired. waits for the time out to expire. process informs (at 1560) the requesting user device that the received escrow key is invalid and requests another escrow key. para. [0103] attempt to retry would only progress if enough time had elapsed since the last try). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with De Atley’s disclosure to determine that a key validating blocking period has elapsed after receiving, by the node, the first key. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have limited attempts to obtain keys, which would lessen load and improved security.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Patil, Bhattacharya, Chen, and Li et al. US Patent Publication No. 2020/0235945 ("Li").
Regarding claim 6, Hara in view of Patil, Bhattacharya, and Chen teach the method of claim 1, wherein, wherein the second key is used to encrypt a message received by the node (Hara: para. [0019] decryptor 42 decrypts the encrypted data received by the receiver 32 by using any one encryption key of the encryption key group stored in the storage). Hara does not teach detecting the decryption failure using the first key comprises determining that the first key is outdated based on a comparison of a version identifier of the first key with a version identifier of a second key.
Li discloses determining that a first key is outdated based on a comparison of a version identifier of the first key with a version identifier of a second key (para. [0082] sends a key update request. para. [0086] target SD determines whether the first key is updated. target SD may determine whether a version number of the first key included in the key updated request… matches with a version number that is stored in the SE). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Li’s disclosure of determining that a first key is outdated based on a comparison of a version identifier of the first key with a version identifier of a second key. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have determined whether an updated key should be provided by determining whether a key has been updated or not.
Regarding claim 7, Hara does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the decryption failure using the first key comprises determining that the first key is outdated based on an outdated key notification received by the node from a second node.
Li discloses determining that a first key is outdated based on an outdated key notification received by the node from a second node (para. [0082] sends a key update request. para. [0086] target SD determines whether the first key is updated. target SD may determine whether a version number of the first key included in the key updated request… matches with a version number that is stored in the SE. para. [0087] notifies the target SD that the key is updated. sends the new key to the TA entity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Li’s disclosure of determining that the first key is outdated based on an outdated key notification received by the node from a second node. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of determining an updated key and providing notification of the updated key.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Patil, Bhattacharya, Chen, and Raju US Patent No. 9,129,283 (“Raju”)
Regarding claim 9, Hara does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that a wait period has elapsed without a response to the request for the update to the first key; and in response to determining that the wait period has elapsed without the response, transmitting a second request for the update to the first key.
Raju discloses determining that a wait period has elapsed without a response to a request for a first key; and in response to determining that the wait period has elapsed without the response, transmitting a second request for the first key (col. 9, lines 54-66. data manager requests the encryption key from the keyholding device. data manager determines that the key has not been received from the keyholding device. data manager waits a period of time and resends the request for the key). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Raju’s disclosure such that request for the update to the key as disclosed Hara is resend after a wait period has elapsed without a response. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of providing a retry policy, which would have reduced traffic and provided additional opportunities to receive an updated key.
Claims 10, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. EP 3306853, published April 11, 2018 (“Hara”) in view of Bhattacharya et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0021687 (“Bhattacharya”), Chen US Patent Publication No. 2017/0338950 (“Chen”), and Li et al. US Patent Publication No. 2020/0235945 (“Li”).
Regarding claim 10, Hara teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a node of a mesh network (Note: The “mesh network” is recited in the preamble and does not limit the media. The claim does not depend on the “mesh network.” See MPEP 2111.02), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
counting, using a counter, one or more failures associated with use of the first key (para. [0072] counts the total number of times that the decryption fails of using the new key and… the old key. resets the total number of failures when the decryption is successfully performed or when a prescribed time has elapsed since a first or last failure of the decryption. key updater 43… does not perform the reacquisition operation for acquiring a new key if the total number of times… is smaller than the threshold);
in response to identifying a failure associated with use of the first key, determining that a value stored in the counter is equal to or greater than a minimum failure count; and in response to determining that the value stored in the counter is equal to or greater than the minimum failure count, transmitting, to a key management service, a key request for the first key (para. [0076] total number of failures of decryption reaches the threshold… performs the reacquisition operation and acquires the new key to update the encryption key).
Hara teaches counting, by a node in a network using a failure counter, one or more decryption failures but not expressly while in a key failure detection time period associated with a first key.
Hara teaches determining, by the node, that the failure counter is above a threshold in response to detecting a decryption failure using the first key but not while in a key update time period associated with the first key.
Hara teaches transmitting a key request but not transmitting key validation request for the first key.
Bhattacharya discloses while in a key failure detection time period associated with a first key, counting, by a node using a failure counter, one or more decryption failures (para. [0056] rekeying the SA may also involve IKE 251 renegotiating a new encryption/decryption key for the SA. para. [0063] count for the number of decryption failures may be determined over a certain time period. In one example, the time period may cover the amount of time between when the SA was established and the present. In another example, the time period may correspond to a shorter time period (e.g., last few minutes, hours, days, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Bhattacharya's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial to provide additional security rules/policy for determining security risk and obtaining a new encryption/decryption key (para. [0021[0061]).
Chen discloses while in a key update time period, transmitting a request for a key (para. [0117] times allowed to query the random key, and time periods allowed to query the random key. para. [0118] time periods for querying the random key refer to that some random keys can only be queried at certain time periods). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara and Bhattacharya with Chen’s disclosure of implementing a time period that allows for querying of keys, “key update time period,” such that Hara’s determining of the failure count and the request for the key occurs while in the key update time period. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Chen discloses generating rules for restricting queries for the key, and it would have been beneficial to have further controlled querying of the key using rules, which would have improved security.
Li discloses transmitting, to a key management service, a key validation request for the first key (para. [0082] sends a key update request. para. [0086] target SD determines whether the first key is updated. target SD may determine whether a version number of the first key included in the key updated request matches with a version number that is stored in the SE). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Li's disclosure of sending a key validation request. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of determining whether the key has been updated and in response to the determining, providing an updated key.
Regarding claim 15, Hara does not teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 10. Hara teaches second key used to encrypt a message received by the node (Hara: para. [0019] decryptor 42 decrypts the encrypted data received by the receiver 32 by using any one encryption key of the encryption key group stored in the storage). Hara does not teach wherein identifying the failure associated with use of the first key comprises determining that the first key is outdated based on a comparison of a version identifier of the first key with a version identifier of a second key.
Li discloses determining that a first key is outdated based on a comparison of a version identifier of the first key with a version identifier of a second key (para. [0082] sends a key update request. para. [0086] target SD determines whether the first key is updated. target SD may determine whether a version number of the first key included in the key updated request… matches with a version number that is stored in the SE). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Li’s disclosure of determining that a first key is outdated based on a comparison of a version identifier of the first key with a version identifier of a second key. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have determined whether an updated key should be provided by determining whether a key has been updated or not.
Regarding claim 16, Hara does not teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 10, wherein identifying the failure associated with use of the first key comprises receiving an outdated key notification associated with the first key from a second node.
Li discloses determining that a first key is outdated based on an outdated key notification received by the node from a second node (para. [0082] sends a key update request. para. [0086] target SD determines whether the first key is updated. target SD may determine whether a version number of the first key included in the key updated request… matches with a version number that is stored in the SE. para. [0087] notifies the target SD that the key is updated. sends the new key to the TA entity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Li’s disclosure of determining that the first key is outdated based on an outdated key notification received by the node from a second node. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of determining an updated key and providing notification of the updated key.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Bhattacharya, Chen, Li, Khatri et al. US Patent Publication No. 2023/0237204 (“Khatri”), and Eastham et al. US Patent Publication No. 2008/0178003 (“Eastham”)
Regarding claim 11, Hara does not teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 10, wherein the failure counting period begins a time period before an end of a key rollover try period, the key rollover try period starting when a first failure associated with use of the first key is detected.
Khatri discloses a key failure detection time period begins a time period after a first failure associated with the first key has been detected (para. [0023] initiating a failure timer that begins a count down when an attempt to connect with the key management service (150) fails). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara and Bhattacharya with Khatri’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial to further specify polices for key management and improved security by limiting the period to a time associated with the first failure.
Eastham discloses a key rollover try period (para. [0034] key exchange key. para. [0041] parameter 224 may indicate the maximum amount of time that nodes… may trust KEK 204 without sending update requests. maximum update parameter 224 is distributed to a node each time the node checks for an updated KEK204. para. [0042] first update request sixty minutes after node A… is authenticated and receives the KEK 204). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara and Khatri with Eastham’s disclosure of key rollover try period which coincides with the failure counting period. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have reduced the sending of update requests to the server.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Bhattacharya, Chen, Li, and De Atley et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0182041 (“De Atley”)
Regarding claim 12, Hara does not teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise preventing transmitting of the key validation request for the first key during a key validation blocking period.
De Atley discloses preventing transmitting of a request for a first key during a key blocking period. (para. [0102] key cannot decrypt the recovered secure object. determines… whether the time out is expired. waits for the time out to expire. process informs (at 1560) the requesting user device that the received escrow key is invalid and requests another escrow key. para. [0103] attempt to retry would only progress if enough time had elapsed since the last try). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara and Li with De Atley’s disclosure such that the key validation request disclosed by Li is prevented from transmission during a blocking period. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have limited attempts to obtain keys, which would lessen load and improved security.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Bhattacharya, Chen, Li, and Zhang et al. US Patent Publication No. 2006/0133614 (“Zhang”).
Regarding claim 13, Hara in view of Bhattacharya, Chen, and Li teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 12. Hara teaches wherein the operations further comprise receiving a update to the first key from the key management service. Hara does not teach setting the value stored in the counter to zero in response to receiving an update to the first key from the key management service.
Zhang discloses setting, by a node, a failure count to zero in response to receiving a key from a key management service (para. [0013] new key and decrypts the data frame using the same. access point then resets the old key to be equal to the current key, and resets the out-of-sync counter to zero). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara with Zhang’s disclosure of resetting, by a node, a failure count to zero. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have tracked failures using the new key.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection(s), set forth in this Office action, is overcome.
Examiner’s Note
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Giladi US Patent Publication No. 2016/0344706 (claim 6. function to determine a request time during an availability window to retrieve the decryption key, and wherein the request time occurs during the availability window, determine the request time based on the function; obtain the decryption key by requesting the decryption key from the key server via the key server URL during the request time)
Wisgo US Patent Publication No. 2023/0108423 (para. [0023] one or more access windows may be determined by the client device, the server device, negotiated between the two or more devices or set by configuration or by policy. para. [0105] computing device may receive a request for the decryption key corresponding to the encryption key of the key pair (720). computing system may check to see if the request is received during a valid access window (722)).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua Joo whose telephone number is (571)272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights