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
This is a reply to the application filed on 8/5/2025, in which, claim(s) 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/5/2025, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/5/2025 is/are accepted by The Examiner.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 11-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fielder (US 20170048205 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Fielder discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a communication circuit (communication device of device 104A/104B [Fielder; Fig. 1A and associated text]);
memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions (memory storage of device 104A/104B [Fielder; Fig. 1A and associated text]); and
at least one processor operatively connected to the communication circuit and the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (processor to execute function of device 104A/104B [Fielder; Fig. 1A and associated text]), cause the electronic device to:
obtain, via the communication circuit from a server, encryption information related to a group including the electronic device (group is two or more members that share confidential information, with algorithm table defining security method communicate within the group [Fielder; ¶50-62, 87-96; Fig. 2-4C and associated text]),
when an unencrypted packet is received from an external electronic device included in the group, check whether the group provides encrypted communication (determination is made whether an encrypted communication is received [Fielder; ¶50-62, 87-96; Fig. 2-4C and associated text]),
when the group provides the encrypted communication, transmit, to the external electronic device, a request signal related to updating the encryption information send communication to obtain algorithm, identify algorithm to be used [Fielder; ¶50-62, 87-96; Fig. 2-4C and associated text]), and
when a signal related to a completion of updating the encryption information is received from the external electronic device, receive an encrypted packet from the external electronic device (encrypt communication with selected encryption algorithm and transmit the encrypted communication [Fielder; ¶50-62, 87-96; Fig. 2-4C and associated text]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Fielder discloses wherein the encryption information includes at least one of a traffic generating key (TGK), a random value (RAND), a crypto session bundle identifier (CSB-ID), or a crypto session identifier (CS-ID) (random value [Fielder; ¶27, 67; Fig. 2-4C and associated text]).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 18, Fielder discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: when a packet received from the external electronic device does not include a master key identifier (MKI), determine that the packet received from the external electronic device is the unencrypted packet, and when the packet received from the external electronic device includes the MKI, determine that the packet received from the external electronic device is the encrypted packet (encryption algorithm includes functionality to transform information in a clear text format into an encrypted format that is unreadable by anyone or anything that does not possess a corresponding encryption key. For example, the encryption algorithm may correspond to Data Encryption Algorithm (DEA) specified in the Data Encryption Standard (DES), Triple DES, Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), FEAL, SKIPJACK, any other encryption algorithm, or any combination thereof [Fielder; ¶36; Fig. 2-4C and associated text]).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Fielder discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to, when the group including the electronic device provides the encrypted communication: update an encryption key related to the group through the server, and update the encryption information related to the group through the server (determination may be made to update the encryption solutions. For example, during a communication session, the members of a group may agree to change the encryption key and/or the secrets. For example, the agreement may be based on a signal passed between the members when one of the members suspects that the encryption key is compromised. As another example, the agreement may be based on a pre-agreed period at which a new encryption key is generated. For example, the members may agree that a new encryption key should be generated every five minutes, with every 20 sessions, based on the amount of data exchanged, etc. If a determination is made to update encryption solutions, new encryption solutions are generated. By updating encryption solutions, nefarious users or computer system may have difficulty using the correct encryption solution for the correct communication. New encryption solutions may be generated during a communication using the steps discussed in FIG. 5A below. Alternatively, if a determination is made not to update encryption solutions, then another determination is made whether an encrypted communication is received [Fielder; ¶94-96; Fig. 2-4C and associated text]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Fielder discloses further comprising: an output device, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: when a signal related to a failure to update the encryption information is received from the external electronic device, output information related to receiving the unencrypted packet to an outside through the output device, and when an input related to performance of unencrypted communication is detected based on the outputted information, output the unencrypted packet received from the external electronic device to the outside through the output device (determined configured across all members of a group to request the same number of message digests. The configuration may be based, for example, on the type of communication, the encryption algorithm, and/or the type of data to be extracted from the message digest, configured to communicate with other applications executing on the same or different computing devices using the API and determined if the encryption of communication is needed, sending encrypted communication or unencrypted based on the determination [Fielder; ¶35-40, 91-96; Fig. 4C and associated text]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Fielder discloses further comprising: an output device, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: when a signal related to a failure to update the encryption information is received from the external electronic device, check whether a menu related to receiving the unencrypted packet is configured, and when the menu related to receiving the unencrypted packet is configured, output the unencrypted packet received from the external electronic device to an outside through the output device (determined configured across all members of a group to request the same number of message digests. The configuration may be based, for example, on the type of communication, the encryption algorithm, and/or the type of data to be extracted from the message digest, configured to communicate with other applications executing on the same or different computing devices using the API and determined if the encryption of communication is needed, sending encrypted communication or unencrypted based on the determination [Fielder; ¶35-40, 91-96; Fig. 4C and associated text]).
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.
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) 2, 8, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fielder (US 20170048205 A1) in view of Sedlacek et al. (US 20190007803 A1; hereinafter Sedlacek).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Fielder discloses wherein the encryption information includes information related to a security real time protocol (SRTP) session key (establish session in MCPTT with SRTP Secure RTP and SRTP Secure Real-Time Transport Protocol [Sedlacek; ¶7-11; Figs. 2A-2B and associated texts]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fielder in view of Sedlacek with the motivation to established secure realtime protocol.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Fielder discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: decrypt encryption information obtained from a grouping management server (GMS) based on an encryption key obtained from a key management server (KMS) to obtain the encryption information related to the group including the electronic device (establish session in MCPTT using keys for the protection of group call sessions. These keys are the Group Management Key (GMK) and the multicast key floor control (MKFC). The GMK is used for the protection of the media and the MKFC is used for the protection of the multicast floor control from the MCPTT server to the MCPTT UE and KMS Transport Key [Sedlacek; ¶7-16, 50-52, 60-62; Figs. 2A-2B, 6 and associated texts]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fielder in view of Sedlacek with the motivation to better identified and managed secure communication in a group communication.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights