www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/614,821
`
`11/19/2019
`
`ROJAN CHITRAKAR
`
`731456.565USPC
`
`8022
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`ALMAGHAYREH, KHALID M
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2492
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/08/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOeAction @ SeedIP.com
`
`pairlinkdktg @seedip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`21-40 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)____is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)¥] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 11/19/2019 is/are: a)[¥) accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)¥) All
`1.4) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20211127
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/614,821
`CHITRAKAR etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`KHALID M ALMAGHAYREH
`2492
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 11/19/2019.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)L) This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This communication responsive to the Application No. 16/614,821 filed on November
`
`19, 2019. A preliminary amendmentwasfiled on 11/19/2019 in which claims 1-20 were
`
`canceled, and claims 21-40 were added new. Claims 21-40 are pending and directed towards
`
`COMMUNICATION APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SECURE LOW POWER
`
`TRANSMISSION.
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined underthe
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AJA.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2019, 07/31/2020 and
`
`06/11/2021 were Acknowledge. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37
`
`CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the
`
`examiner.
`
`Specification
`
`The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`In the specification Para [0012], “waveform ((OOK)”has an extra parenthesis, and
`
`should be “waveform (OOK)”.
`
`In the specification Para [0015], “an address field 242” should be “an address field 244”.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Page 3
`
`This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37
`
`CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
`
`Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
`
`A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and
`
`should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should
`
`not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare
`
`the invention with the prior art.
`
`If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in theart, and
`
`the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an
`
`improvementin an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include
`
`the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of
`
`example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
`
`Whereapplicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or
`
`apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical
`
`compound,its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
`
`Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the
`
`abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph
`
`within the range of 50 to 150 wordsin length.
`
`See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 4
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claims 23, 26, 28, 36 and 38 objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`Claim 23 recites “the temporal is a WUR integrity group Temporal Key” which should
`
`be “the temporal key is a WURintegrity group Temporal Key”
`
`Claims 26 and 36 recite “frame check sequence (FCS)”, the first letter of the words
`
`defining the acronym should becapitalized.
`
`Claims 28 and 38 recite “time synchronization function (TSF)”, the first letter of the
`
`words defining the acronym should be capitalized.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION.—Thespecification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing
`out anddistinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
`invention.
`
`Claims 21-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to
`
`particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventorora joint
`
`inventor, regards as the invention.
`
`Claims 21 and 31 recite the abbreviation “WUR” whichis not defined and notclear.
`
`Examinerinterpreted the abbreviation in the light of the specification to be (Wake-Up Radio
`
`“WUR’”). The acronym should be defined at least once withfirst letters capitalized.
`
`Claims 25 and 35 recite the limitation “wherein the circuitry uses a transmitter address to
`
`compute the MIC” which is vague and notclear. It is not understood whether the MIC is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 5
`
`computing only using the transmitter address, or using the transmitter address in addition to the
`
`temporal key and the number. For examination purposes, the examinerinterpreted in the claim in
`
`light of the specification to recite “wherein the circuitry also uses a transmitter address to
`
`compute the MIC”, where the MIC is computed based on the three parameters.
`
`Claims 27 and 37recite the limitation “wherein the MIC is computed from an ID field of
`
`the WURframe” whichis vague and notclear. It is not understood whether the MIC is
`
`computing only using the ID field, or using the ID field in addition to the temporal key and the
`
`number. For examination purposes, the examiner interpreted in the claim in light of the
`
`specification to recite “wherein the circuitry also uses an ID field to compute the MIC”, where
`
`the MIC is computed based on the three parameters.
`
`Claims 27 and37 recite the abbreviation “ID” whichis not defined and notclear.
`
`Examinerinterpreted the abbreviation in the light of the specification to be (Identifier “ID”). The
`
`acronym should be defined at least once with first letters capitalized.
`
`Claims 22-24, 26, 28-30, 32-34, 36 and 38-40 are rejected by dependency.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Whoeverinvents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`matter, or any new and useful improvementthereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirementsofthistitle.
`
`Claims 21-23, 25-33 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
`
`invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a
`
`judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 6
`
`Whenconsidering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined
`
`whetherthe claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention,1.e., process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim doesfall within one of the
`
`statutory categories, it must then be determined whetherthe claim is directed to a judicial
`
`exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon,and abstract idea), and if so, it must
`
`additionally be determined whetherthe claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If
`
`an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must
`
`be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
`
`itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mental processes; certain methods of organizing
`
`humanactivities; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. vy. CLS
`
`BankInternational, et al., 573 U.S. _____ (2014).
`
`Analysis has been updated based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019
`
`PEG).
`
`Claims 21-23, 25-33 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
`
`invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
`
`Claim 21 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for calculating and transmitting a MIC
`
`in a frame.
`
`The claim is directed to a machine, whichis a statutory category of invention.
`
`The claim is then analyzed to determine whetherit is directed to a judicial exception. The
`
`claim recites the limitations of using a temporal key and a numberto compute a Message
`
`Integrity Code (MIC) and transmitting a WUR frame containing the MIC.
`
`The claimed machine simply describes series of steps for calculating and transmitting
`
`a MIC in a frame. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 7
`
`interpretation, covers performanceofthe limitations via computing a MIC using a temporal
`
`key and a number,butfor the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than
`
`reciting a circuitry and a transmitter, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from
`
`practically being performed by manually. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea
`
`becausethey are activities that falls within the enumerated group of “mathematical concepts/
`
`mathematical calculations” in the 2019 PEG.
`
`Next, the claim is analyzed to determineif it is integrated into a practical application. The
`
`claim recites additional limitation of using a circuitry and a transmitter to perform the steps.
`
`The circuitry in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic circuitry
`
`performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic circuitry limitation is
`
`no more than mereinstructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also,
`
`these limitation are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological
`
`environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a
`
`practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
`
`idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
`
`Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that
`
`individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more
`
`than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above,the
`
`recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implementthe abstract idea
`
`on a circuitry (using the circuitry as a tool to implementthe abstract idea). Taking the
`
`additional elements individually and in combination, the circuitry at each step of the process
`
`performs purely generic computer functions. As such,there is no inventive conceptsufficient to
`
`transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application The same analysis applies
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 8
`
`here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer componentcannot
`
`integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
`
`Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than
`
`looking at the limitations individually. When viewedeither individually, or as an ordered
`
`combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole thatis significantly
`
`more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amountto significantly more
`
`than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patenteligible.
`
`The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claims 21
`
`and 31 (Examiner’s note: even though applicant claims a communication apparatus in the
`
`preamble of claim 31, the body of the claim doesnotrefer to the use of a circuitry/processor. The
`
`preambledoes not breathelife into the body of the claim). Furthermore, the dependent claims
`
`22-23, 25-30, 32-33 and 35-40 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The
`
`dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea (such as the
`
`MICis computed using TK-WUR, IGTK-WUR,TFS number,transmitter address, and ID
`
`field. Or the MICis contained in a frame check sequence (FCS) field of the WUR frame).
`
`The dependentclaims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent
`
`claims. Therefore none of the dependentclaims alone or as an ordered combination add
`
`limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
`
`Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elementsthat are sufficient to amount
`
`to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply
`
`steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amountsto the application or
`
`instructions to apply the abstract idea on a circuitry, and is considered to amount to nothing
`
`more than requiring a generic circuitry to merely carry out the abstract ideaitself.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 9
`
`Accordingly, claims 21-23, 25-33 and 35-40 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
`
`Theinstant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice
`
`Corporation Ply. Ltd. vy. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme
`
`Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al.
`
`("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Furthermore, claims 24 and 34 as a whole amountto significantly more than the abstract
`
`ideaitself. This is because the claims as a whole effect an improvement to another technology or
`
`technical field. These limitations in combination provide meaningful limitations beyond
`
`generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (changing
`
`the state of other network device using a wake-up radio frame). These limitations, when taken as
`
`an ordered combination, provide unconventional steps that confines the abstract idea to a
`
`particular application. Therefore, the claim recites patent eligible subject matter. For these
`
`reasons claims 24 and 34 are deemedto bepatenteligible.
`
`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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground ofrejection if the prior art
`
`relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same undereither 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 personshall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 10
`
`(a)(1) the claimed invention waspatented, 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) 21, 24-26, 28-29, 31, 34-36, 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as
`
`being anticipated by Benoit et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0057703 A1 (hereinafter
`
`“Benoit”).
`
`Asper claims 21 and 31, Benoit teaches a communication apparatus and method
`
`comprising:
`
`circuitry which, in operation, uses a temporal key and a number to compute a Message
`
`Integrity Code (MIC) (The wireless device 302 may include a processor 304 which controls
`
`operation of the wireless device 302. Benoit, para [0076]) (Calculation of the FAC [MIC] starts
`
`with deriving a key, k, from the TK used in a previous session, at 2262. The derivation of k from
`
`the TK may be performed by using a strong hashing algorithm (e.g., SHA256, SHA3) on the TK,
`
`although any of a number of mathematical functions known in the art may be used to derive k
`
`from the TK. Thekey, k, is then used as a key in a lightweight cipher algorithm 2264 that is used
`
`to encipher the RA, TA, TV, and N [a sequence numberfield including the sequence number].
`
`The output of enciphering the RA, TA, TV, and N with k is the FAC. Benoit, para [0171 ]-
`
`[0172]); and
`
`a transmitter which, in operation, transmits a WUR frame containing the MIC (The
`
`wireless device 302 may also include a housing 308 that may include a transmitter. Benoit, para
`
`[0077])( Whenit is the correct time to transmit the wake-up frame, the AP transmits the clock
`
`resynchronization frame, including the FC, RA, TV, N, and FAC fields. Benoit, para [0172]])
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 11
`
`Asper claims 24 and 34, Benoit teaches the communication apparatus and method
`
`according to Claims 21 and 31, wherein the WUR frame wakesupa station associated with the
`
`communication apparatus (an AP may include a FAC in a wake-up frame(e.g., the wake-up
`
`framesillustrated in FIGS. 8-10), and a receiving STA may use the FAC to authenticate the
`
`received frame before waking up a primary radio of the STA. Benoit, Para [0126]) ([multiple
`
`stations associated with access point that transmits WUR frame wake up signals]. Benoit, Fig.1).
`
`Asper claims 25 and 35, Benoit teaches the communication apparatus and method
`
`according to Claims 21 and 31, wherein the circuitry uses a transmitter address to compute the
`
`MIC (Calculation of the FAC [MIC] starts with deriving a key, k, from the TK used ina
`
`previous session, at 2262. The derivation of k from the TK may be performed by using a strong
`
`hashing algorithm (e.g., SHA256, SHA3) on the TK, although any of a number of mathematical
`
`functions knownin the art may be used to derive k from the TK. The key, k, is then used as a key
`
`in a lightweight cipher algorithm 2264 that is used to encipher the RA, TA [transmitter address],
`
`TV, and N [a sequence numberfield including the sequence number]. The output of
`
`enciphering the RA, TA, TV, and N with k is the FAC. Benoit, para [0171]-[0172]]).
`
`Asper claims 26 and 36, Benoit teaches the communication apparatus and method
`
`according to Claims 21 and 31, wherein the MIC is contained in a frame check sequence (FCS)
`
`field of the WURframe (a Frame Check Sequence (FCS)field (e.g., FCS field 616 shown
`
`in FIGS. 8-12) of a frame may be replaced by a Frame Authentication Code (FAC) field in order
`
`to allow a receiving device to authenticate the message. Benoit, para [0128]]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 12
`
`Asper claims 28 and 38, Benoit teaches the communication apparatus and method
`
`according to Claims 21 and 31, wherein the numberis a part of time synchronization function
`
`(TSF) timer (Calculation of the FAC [MIC] starts with deriving a key, k, from the TK used in a
`
`previous session, at 2262. The derivation of k from the TK may be performed by using a strong
`
`hashing algorithm (e.g., SHA256, SHA3) on the TK, although any of a number of mathematical
`
`functions knownin the art may be used to derive k from the TK. The key, k, is then used as a key
`
`in a lightweight cipher algorithm 2264 that is used to encipher the RA, TA, TV [a time value
`
`field including a time value to be used by the STA to resynchronize the clock of the STA], and
`
`N. The output of enciphering the RA, TA, TV, and N with k is the FAC. Benoit, para [0171]-
`
`[0172]).
`
`Asper claims 29 and 39, Benoit teaches the communication apparatus and method
`
`according to Claims 21 and 31, wherein the numberis incremented by onefor each of
`
`transmissions of the WURframeusing the temporal key (N may be incremented by a transmitter
`
`(e.g., an AP) each time the transmitter transmits a clock resynchronization frame. Thus, if a STA
`
`receives a clock resynchronization frame which includes a sequence number N that does not
`
`equal or exceed an expected sequence number(e.g., one more than the value ofN stored by the
`
`STA), the STA can discard the clock resynchronization frame as invalid. Benoit, para [0176]-
`
`[0177]).
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 13
`
`statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new groundofrejection if the priorart
`
`relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same undereither status.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which formsthe basis for all obviousness
`
`rejectionsset 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 obviousbefore the effective
`filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinaryskill in the art to which the claimed
`invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the mannerin 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 priorart.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences betweenthe prior art and the claimsat issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Benoit et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0057703 A1 (hereinafter “Benoit”) in view of Qi et
`
`al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0264954 A1 (hereinafter “Qi’”).
`
`Asperclaims 22 and 32, Benoit teaches the communication apparatus and method
`
`according to Claims 21 and 31. Benoit does not explicitly teach wherein the temporal key is a
`
`WURTemporal Key, and the circuitry uses the WUR Temporal Key to compute the MIC for
`
`protecting the WUR frame whichis an individually addressed WURframe.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 14
`
`However, Qi teaches wherein the temporal key is a WUR Temporal Key, and the
`
`circuitry uses the WUR Temporal Key to compute the MIC for protecting the WUR frame which
`
`is an individually addressed WURframe(A key identification (ID) field 430 is also included in
`
`the format and identifies an integrity pairwise temporal key (IPTK) [Pairwise Keys are usedfor
`
`unicast communication between a pair of devices] between the paging controller and STA used
`
`to compute a message integrity code (MIC) for a MICfield. Qi, para [0032])(the STA checks the
`
`paging indication action frame [WUR] to see if it has been paged andif the paging indication is
`
`trusted, if the STA has been paged and the paging indication is trusted, the STA checks the
`
`paging event type and decides whetheror not to fully "wake-up"to exit the paging mode and
`
`resume communication within the network. Qi, para [0039]).
`
`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 teaching of Benoit so that wherein
`
`the temporal key is a WUR Temporal Key, and the circuitry uses the WUR Temporal Key to
`
`compute the MIC for protecting the WUR frame whichis an individually addressed WURframe.
`
`One would be motivated to do so, to provide protection against the replay attacks and enhance
`
`the security of the system. (Qi, para [0032]).
`
`Claims 23, 27, 30, 33, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Benoit et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0057703 Al (hereinafter
`
`“Benoit”) in view of Yanget al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0063788 A1 (hereinafter
`
`“Yang”’)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 15
`
`Asper claims 23 and 33, Benoit teaches the communication apparatus and method
`
`according to Claims 21 and 31. Benoit does not explicitly teach wherein the temporal is a WUR
`
`integrity group Temporal Key,and the circuitry uses the WURintegrity group Temporal Key to
`
`compute the MIC for protecting the WUR frame which is a broadcast WURframeor a group
`
`addressed WURframe(the authenticity and integrity protection on the first frame is provided by
`
`broadcast/multicast integrity protocol (BIP) as defined in IEEE 802.11 technical standards. The
`
`BIP provides integrity and replay protection for group addressed robust Managementframes.
`
`[...]. The MMEincludes a MIC field containing a MIC value, a Key ID field identifying the
`
`integrity group temporal key (IGTK) usedfor computing the MIC value. Yang, para [0074])
`
`However, Yang teaches wherein the temporal key is a WURintegrity group Temporal
`
`Key, and the circuitry uses the WURintegrity group Temporal Key to compute the MIC for
`
`protecting the WUR frame whichis a broadcast WURframe or a group addressed WURframe.
`
`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 teaching of Benoit so that the
`
`temporal is a WURintegrity group Temporal Key,and the circuitry uses the WURintegrity
`
`group Temporal Key to compute the MIC for protecting the WUR frame whichis a broadcast
`
`WURframeor a group addressed WURframe. One would be motivated to do so, to provide
`
`protection against the replay attacks. (Yang, para [0074]]).
`
`Asperclaims 27 and 37, Benoit teaches the communication apparatus and method
`
`according to Claims 21 and 31. Benoit does not explicitly teach wherein the MIC is computed
`
`from an ID field of the WUR frame.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 16
`
`However, Yang teaches wherein the MIC is computed from an ID field of the WUR
`
`frame (a Key ID field identifying the integrity group temporal key (IGTK) usedfor computing
`
`the MIC value. Yang, para [0074])
`
`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 teaching of Benoit so that the MIC is
`
`computed from an ID field of the WUR frame. One would be motivated to do so, to provide
`
`protection against the replay attacks. (Yang, para [0074]]).
`
`Asperclaims 30 and 40, Benoit teaches the communication apparatus and method
`
`according to Claims 29 and 39. Benoit does not explicitly teach wherein the numberis indicated
`
`by a subfield of the WURframe.
`
`However, Yang teaches wherein the numberis indicated by a subfield of the WUR frame
`
`(822-832 are packet numbers using in calculating the MIC implements as subfields of the CCMP
`
`header of the WUR frame. Yang, Fig. 8 elements 822-832).
`
`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 teaching of Benoit so that the
`
`numberis indicated by a subfield of the WUR frame. One would be motivated to do so, to
`
`increase the security of the system.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The prior art made of record and notrelied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/614,821
`Art Unit: 2492
`
`Page 17
`
`A. Min et al. US 2017/0134943 A1 directed to techniques for secure wireless low-power
`
`wake-up frames.
`
`B. Abraham et al. US 2012/0289192 A1 directed to protecting integrity of transmitted
`
`messages in a wireless communications.
`
`C. Zhong et al. WO 2014176979 Al directed to a radio wake-up method and a radio
`
`wake-up circuit in a wireless communication network.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to KHALID M ALMAGHAYREHwhosetelephone numberis
`
`(571)272-0179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8AM-5PM EST &
`
`Friday variable.
`
`Examinerinterviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using
`
`a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicantis
`
`encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR)at
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examinerby telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, SALEH NAJJAR can be reached on (571)272-4006. The fax phone numberfor the
`
`organization wherethis application or proceedingis 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 managepatent 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 http