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
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 07/14/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s note
The applicant was called to suggest some amendments to advance compact prosecution. The applicant is encouraged to reach out to the examiner for further guidance if needed.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 21 objected to because of the following informalities: recite “an other” which might need to be changed to “another”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-20, 22 and 24-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fu et al. (US 20230073658 A1) hereinafter referred to as Fu.
With respect to claim 1, Fu discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a relay user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: (Fu ¶75-76 teach exemplary UEs with the recited hardware).
obtain a first unicast key, from a first receiver UE, and a second unicast key, from a second receiver UE; (Fu ¶41 teaches a UE does a broadcast in discovery phase which comprises a MAC and encrypted application key. The encrypted application key is interpreted as unicast key. So it is interpreted that on UE will receive the broadcast from other UEs that comprise the recited elements).
transmit, to the first receiver UE, a first communication that is based at least in part on a lower layer groupcast key and the first unicast key; (Fu ¶44 teaches transmitting back communication to any of the broadcasting UEs based on the received MAC and key).
and transmit, to the second receiver UE, a second communication that is based at least in part on the lower layer groupcast key and the second unicast key. (Again, this concept applies to any number of UEs, Fu ¶44 teaches transmitting back communication to any of the broadcasting UEs based on the received MAC and key).
Claims 10, 16 and 25 recite apparatus and method. While the claims have difference in language like relay UE instead of second receiver UE but they recite similar matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 2, Fu discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to communicate with at least one of the first receiver UE and the second receiver UE, via a sidelink groupcast communication, using the lower layer groupcast key. (Fu ¶37 “One aspect of the disclosure is to provide security mechanisms to protect the L2 [lower layer] identifiers used in groupcast communications over the sidelink (e.g., PC5 interface)”).
Claims 12, 17 and 27 recite apparatus and method. While the claims have difference in language they recite similar matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 3, Fu discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first communication is a logical combination of the lower layer groupcast key and the first unicast key, and the second communication is a logical combination of the lower layer groupcast key and the second unicast key. (Fu ¶44 teaches transmitting back communication to any of the broadcasting UEs based on the received MAC and key).
Claim 18 recites a method. While the claim has difference in language it recites similar matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 4, Fu discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lower layer groupcast key is a physical layer key, a medium access control layer key, or a radio link control layer key. (Fu ¶43 teaches the key comprises L2 MAC).
Claims 13, 19 and 28 recite apparatus and method. While the claims have difference in language they recite similar matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 5, Fu discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to the first receiver UE, a third communication that is based at least in part on a second lower layer groupcast key and the first unicast key; transmit, to the second receiver UE, a fourth communication that is based at least in part on the second lower layer groupcast key and the second unicast key; and communicate with the first receiver UE and the second receiver UE using the second lower layer groupcast key. (Fu Abstract and ¶¶44, 46-47 teach using L2 ID and MAC to groupcast a message to UEs in the same group).
Claim 20 recites a method. While the claim has difference in language it recites similar matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 7, Fu discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lower layer groupcast key is a layer 2 (L2) groupcast key. (Fu ¶43-44 based on the MAC parameter which is a layer 2 lower layer key).
Claim 22 recites a method. While the claim has difference in language it recites similar matter as claim 7 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 9, Fu discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lower layer groupcast key is based at least in part on a parameter and the parameter is based at least in part on a layer at which the lower layer groupcast key is derived. (Fu ¶43-44 based on the MAC parameter which is a layer 2 lower layer key).
Claims 15, 24 and 30 recite apparatus and method. While the claims have difference in language they recite similar matter as claim 9 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 11, Fu discloses: The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the lower layer groupcast key based at least in part on the unicast key. (Fu ¶38 “Key, K, which is used for generating a MAC”)
With respect to claim 14, Fu discloses: The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the relay UE, a communication that is based at least in part on the unicast key and a second lower layer groupcast key associated with the plurality of receiver UEs; and communicate with the relay UE using the second lower layer groupcast key. (In view of the independent claim mapping that teaches the communication is based on unicast key and MAC (L2 groupcast key), Fu ¶39 “a UE 100 belong to multiple groups; the UE 100 may have different keys for different group.” Which means that for each group there is a different groupcast key which is interpreted as second groupcast key to communicate with UEs in that group of the plurality of groups).
With respect to claim 26, Fu discloses: The method of claim 25, further comprising: determining the lower layer groupcast key based at least in part on the unicast key. (Fu ¶38 “Key, K, which is used for generating a MAC”)
With respect to claim 29, Fu discloses: The method of claim 25, further comprising: receiving a communication that is based at least in part on the unicast key and a second lower layer groupcast key associated with the plurality of receiver UEs; and communicating with the relay UE using the second lower layer groupcast key. (In view of the independent claim mapping that teaches the communication is based on unicast key and MAC (L2 groupcast key), Fu ¶39 “a UE 100 belong to multiple groups; the UE 100 may have different keys for different group.” Which means that for each group there is a different groupcast key which is interpreted as second groupcast key to communicate with UEs in that group of the plurality of groups).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-20, 22 and 24-30 above, and further in view of Pan et al. (US 20200221298 A1) hereinafter referred to as Pan.
With respect to claim 6, Fu discloses: The apparatus of claim 1,
Fu does not explicitly disclose: wherein the one or more processors are configured to exchange a certificate with the first receiver UE to obtain the first unicast key, and exchange an other certificate with the second receiver UE to obtain the second unicast key.
However, Pan in an analogous art discloses: wherein the one or more processors are configured to exchange a certificate with the first receiver UE to obtain the first unicast key, and exchange an other certificate with the second receiver UE to obtain the second unicast key. (Pan ¶70 teaches the importance of exchanging certificates in UEs to establish trust and an L2 Link before exchanging data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the obtained first and second unicast keys disclosed by Fu wherein the one or more processors are configured to exchange a certificate with the first receiver UE to obtain the first unicast key, and exchange an other certificate with the second receiver UE to obtain the second unicast key as disclosed by Pan to ensure the link is secure by using a valid certificate before exchanging keys data (see Pan ¶70).
Claim 21 recites a method. While the claim has difference in language it recites similar matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-20, 22 and 24-30 above, and further in view of Afrouzi et al. (US 11274929 B1) hereinafter referred to as Afrouzi.
With respect to claim 8, Fu discloses: The apparatus of claim 1,
Fu does not explicitly disclose: wherein the lower layer groupcast key is based at least in part on a parameter and a first eight bits of a destination identifier.
However, Afrouzi in an analogous art discloses: wherein the lower layer groupcast key is based at least in part on a parameter and a first eight bits of a destination identifier. (Afrouzi 121:35-40 “each code may contain an 8 bits command and an 8 bits address giving a total of 16 bits”. Afrouzi 129:40-50 “bit 0 of octet 0 of a MAC address may indicate whether the destination address is a broadcast/multicast address or a unicast address. Based on the value of bit 0 of octet 0 of the MAC address, the MAC frame may be destined for either a group of hosts or all hosts on the network. In embodiments, the MAC destination address may be the broadcast address 0xFFFF.FFFF.FFFF” which shows the MAC upon which communication is established is based on a parameter and eight bit address [destination identifier]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the obtained first and second unicast keys disclosed by Fu wherein the lower layer groupcast key is based at least in part on a parameter and a first eight bits of a destination identifier as taught by Afrouzi because 8 bits is common size in 16 bits data transfer (see Arfouzi 129:40-50).
Claim 23 recites a method. While the claim has difference in language it recites similar matter as claim 8 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Selvanesan et al. (US 20240323654 A1) Abstract and claim 3 teach groupcast/unicast communication which comprises a source UE ID, a L2 destination ID, a L1 destination ID, and/a or logical group ID.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights