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 .
Claims 1-18 and 42 are pending.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
No claims are cancelled or added. Claims 19-41 were previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with regards to the Double Patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Section 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Section 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to Applicant’s arguments in view of Yau et al., it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the amended claims are addressed in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180075677 to Campero et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160049033 to Sigal et al., in keeping with previously related limitations of the claims. The rejections have been updated to address the amended claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The documents filed January 29, 2026, are not an information disclosure statement as the documents fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0261411 to Yau et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180075677 to Campero et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160049033 to Sigal et al.
With regards to claims 1 and 11, Yau et al discloses a method for granting access to property to a user of a key fob and an e-key system comprising:
a smart device configured to generate an encrypted code (paragraph [0045], “The method provides two-factor (or multi-factor) authentication by requiring a user in addition to authenticate separately on the mobile device, for example by the authentication on the mobile device being validated on the token before the unlock code is sent.”; Please note that mutual authentication via the mobile device is implemented);
a key fob configured to receive the encrypted code from the smart device and to transmit the encrypted code to a computing device incorporated into property via wireless communication (paragraph [0002], “The present application relates to a method and system of authenticating a user to a computer resource accessed via a mobile device using a portable security token (for example a contactless smart card or bracelet), together with a secret that the user can easily remember (for example a PIN code).”), and wherein the computing device includes a validation module configured to validate the received encrypted code (paragraph [0022-0034, 0187, 0498]; ii. Please note that in this example an encrypted authorization is transmitted such that a user is required to separately authenticate such that a resource can be unlocked.);
wherein when the user of the key fob selects one of the buttons of the key fob, … (paragraph [0037], “The unlock response may alternatively comprise a function (such as a digital signature) of a plain authorization and, optionally, one or more additional parameters, where the plain authorisation is obtained by decrypting the encrypted authorization. Thus, in one usage mode, the token may verify and decrypt the encrypted authorization.”; paragraph [0081], “The token may have button(s), touch-sensitive area(s) or other means to allow manual or other user feedback/input via the token.”),
and transmits the function (paragraph [0036], “The unlock response may comprise a plain authorization, obtained by decrypting the encrypted authorization.”) and encrypted code to the property, thereby controlling an operation of the property (paragraph [0037], “The unlock response may alternatively comprise a function (such as a digital signature) of a plain authorization and, optionally, one or more additional parameters, where the plain authorisation is obtained by decrypting the encrypted authorization. Thus, in one usage mode, the token may verify and decrypt the encrypted authorization. Then, instead of returning a plain authorization to the device, protected by a session or other encryption key, the token may perform some computation on the plain authorization and possibly some other information (typically session-specific parameters), and return the result to the device.”).
However, Yau et al does not expressly disclose but Campero et al. discloses a server configured to update an access log of the key fob in a blockchain (paragraph [0022], “One such approach discussed in detail in below uses access badges 12 a, 12 b, each with embedded credentials 13 a, 13 b in conjunction with a distributed ledger 14 back-end that replaces the typical centralized database (not shown). The access badges 12 a, 12 b are used with access card readers 15, in which a user will swipe or otherwise allow the card readers to read the credential on the user's badge.”; see also paragraphs [0024]-[0031] including teaching blockchain as known type of distributed ledger), …
wherein the computing device transmits information regarding whether the key fob is granted or denied access to the property, as the access log, to the smart device, (paragraph [0038], “In either case, the card reader 150 generates from the data received from the distributed ledger 14, a result. The reader generates a message according to the result. Thus, if the result is to allow access, the reader generated message is a control message that grants 176 a access, e.g., unlocks an electronic lock on a door, etc., e.g., the door lock of FIG. 9.”; paragraph [0039], “If the result is to deny access 176 b then another action can occur such as a retry action that is communicated to the user or an action that is not discernible to the user, but which denies access.”)
wherein the smart device relays the access log to the server, wherein the server generates a block to save the access log therein and adds the block to the blockchain (paragraph [0024], “The distributed ledger system 14 interacts with a security system, e.g., a third party system 18 to allow access to users to otherwise locked facilities. While sharing some similarities to the Blockchain as well as other known types of sequential transaction databases, the distributed ledger 14 has some significant differences.”; paragraph [0040], “With either result (allowing access or denying access) the card reader sends a corresponding transaction message to the distributed ledger 14 that logs the result in the distributed ledger 14. Also, various other access control decisions can be made based on the result.”; it is noted that adding a block is the only way to save something to a blockchain and blockchain is taught to be a known type of distributed ledger),
…. wherein the access log includes information identifying the requested operation (paragraph [0040], “With either result (allowing access or denying access) the card reader sends a corresponding transaction message to the distributed ledger 14 that logs the result in the distributed ledger 14. Also, various other access control decisions can be made based on the result.”)
wherein when the code is not valid, the selected function is not performed by the property (paragraph [0038], “In either case, the card reader 150 generates from the data received from the distributed ledger 14, a result. The reader generates a message according to the result. Thus, if the result is to allow access, the reader generated message is a control message that grants 176 a access, e.g., unlocks an electronic lock on a door, etc., e.g., the door lock of FIG. 9.”; paragraph [0039], “If the result is to deny access 176 b then another action can occur such as a retry action that is communicated to the user or an action that is not discernible to the user, but which denies access.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to create the invention as claimed for the following reasons. 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 teachings of Yau et al by certifying a record, for the purpose of keeping track of changes or updates, based upon the enhanced user experience, security, compliance as discussed in Campero et al. (see for example paragraph [0022]). These modifications would result in ease of use and increased security, both of which are obvious benefits to the skilled artisan. Additionally, the cited references are in the field of computer security, as is the current application, and thus, are in analogous arts.
However, Yau et al does not expressly disclose but Sigal et al. discloses
wherein, when the user of the key fob selects one of the buttons of the key fob, the key fob generates, based on the selected button, an encrypted code corresponding to a requested operation of the property (paragraph [0044], “For example, if the nomadic device 53 is assigned as a primary user, the encrypted data transmitted to the nomadic device 53 may enable all functions and features of the VCS 1. If the nomadic device 53 is assigned as a secondary user at the key fob base station 212, the nomadic device 53 may have restrictions on features and functions of the VCS 1. For example, if the nomadic device 53 is sent encrypted data identifying the device as a secondary user, the VCS 1 may limit speed of the vehicle 31, limit volume control of the radio, and/or limit use of cellular phone activity while the vehicle 31 is moving.”; paragraph [0048], “The nomadic device 53 may communicate with the VCS 1 using the ignition key application 101 allowing the VCS 1 to recognize a keyless entry operation. The VCS 1 may determine based on the encrypted data received from the nomadic device 53 if the one or more operations are approved to be executed at the one or more vehicle systems.”; paragraph [0049], “Prior to starting the vehicle, the nomadic device may transmit the key fob serial number and the encrypted data to the VCS 1, which are then compared to known key fob numbers and/or encrypted data in a PEPS look up table in a manner similar to that described above.”; paragraph [0055], “In another example, the nomadic device 53 may request to start the vehicle 31 via a keyless push button ignition switch 19. The VCS 1 may require additional security data from the key fob 202 via the nomadic device 53 before enabling the start request. The nomadic device 53 may select a start request at the ignition key application 101.”),
wherein the key fob transmits the encrypted code corresponding to the requested operation to the computing device (paragraph [0034], “For example, the key fob base station system 200 may transmit key fob functions to a preregistered nomadic device 53 including, but not limited to, unlocking the door, a trunk opening request, an enabling an alarm, and starting the vehicle.”; paragraph [0036], “The key fob 202 or nomadic device 53 each include an ignition key device and/or application 101 embedded within for communicating with the PEPS controller 223. In one example, the transponder of the key fob 202 and/or nomadic device 53 may be adapted to send the key number and encrypted data on a signal KEY_ID as an RF signal to the PEPS controller 223.”),
wherein the validation module validates the encrypted code before authorizing performance of the requested operation (paragraph [0041], “For example, the signal KEY_ID generally comprises RF data that corresponds to a manufacturer code, a corresponding key fob serial number and encrypted data. The key fob serial number and the encrypted data are used to authorize the engine controller to start the vehicle in the event the encrypted data corresponds to predetermined encrypted data stored in a look up table (LUT) of the PATS controller 222. The PATS controller 222 may use the key fob identifier and/or the encrypted data transmitted on the signal KEY_ID to determine if the key fob is approved to communicate with the VCS 1.”), …, and
wherein, when the code is not valid, the requested operation is not performed by the property (paragraph [0075], “If the VCS detects an error during the security handshake process, the VCS may transmit an error message to the nomadic device in operation 516. The error message may include an unauthorized access message notifying the user at the nomadic device of their denied access to the vehicle. In other examples, the error messages may be customized to include personal message for an identified user.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to create the invention as claimed for the following reasons. 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 teachings of Yau et al by certifying a record, for the purpose of enabling communication with the new smart device and enable a key fob function if authentication is approved as discussed in Sigal et al. (see for example paragraph [0006]). These modifications would result in ease of use and increased security, both of which are obvious benefits to the skilled artisan. Additionally, the cited references are in the field of remote function authorization device, as is the current application, and thus, are in analogous arts.
With regards to claims 2 and 12, Yau et al .further disclose wherein the wireless communication is Bluetooth communication (paragraph [0002], “A preferred embodiment relates to providing data protection and secure access to applications and stored data accessed via a mobile device (such as a phone or tablet) using a near-field communication (NFC) hardware token or a short range Bluetooth token.”; see also paragraphs [0008, 0010, 0059, 0068, 0083]; d. Please note that in this example Bluetooth or NFC is utilized for communication amongst devices in the system.).
With regards to claims 3 and 13, Yau et al. further disclose wherein the mobile device and the key fob are paired according to a Bluetooth protocol (paragraph [0002], “A preferred embodiment relates to providing data protection and secure access to applications and stored data accessed via a mobile device (such as a phone or tablet) using a near-field communication (NFC) hardware token or a short range Bluetooth token.”; see also paragraphs [0008, 0010, 0059, 0068, 0083]; e. Please note that in this example Bluetooth or NFC is utilized for communication amongst devices in the system.).
With regards to claims 4 and 14, Yau et al. further disclose wherein the computing device of the property and the key fob are paired according to a Bluetooth protocol (paragraph [0002], “A preferred embodiment relates to providing data protection and secure access to applications and stored data accessed via a mobile device (such as a phone or tablet) using a near-field communication (NFC) hardware token or a short range Bluetooth token.”; paragraph [0008], “One way to provide an additional level of security to users of mobile devices is by requiring that the user also carries a wearable physical token that communicates with the device using a wireless communication system e.g. Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE).”, see also paragraphs 0010, 0059, 0068, 0083]; f. Please note that in this example Bluetooth or NFC is utilized for communication amongst devices in the system.).
With regards to claims 5, Yau et al. disclose wherein the validation module is constantly powered by the property (paragraph [0488], “For example, FIG. 12 is a block diagram that illustrates a computer system 1200 upon which an embodiment of the invention may be implemented. Computer system 1200 includes a bus 1202 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, and a hardware processor 1204 coupled with bus 1202 for processing information. Hardware processor 1204 may be, for example, a general purpose microprocessor.”).
With regards to claims 6, Yau et al. further disclose wherein the validation module is an electronic circuit (paragraph [0487], “According to one embodiment, the techniques described herein are implemented by one or more special-purpose computing devices. The special-purpose computing devices may be hard-wired to perform the techniques, or may include digital electronic devices such as one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) or field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) that are persistently programmed to perform the techniques, or may include one or more general purpose hardware processors programmed to perform the techniques pursuant to program instructions in firmware, memory, other storage, or a combination.”).
With regards to claims 7 and 15, Yau et al. further disclose the code is encrypted with a public key by the mobile device (paragraph [0254], “A public app developer wishing to integrate Hoverkey into their app must obtain a Registration Key (RegKey) in the form a certificate, which is embedded into the app prior to its public release. The certificate is issued by Hoverkey and signed with the Hoverkey private key. The corresponding public key is embedded in the Hoverkey App for verification of the app certificate.”)
With regards to claims 8 and 16, Yau et al. further discloses the validation module decrypts the encrypted code with a private key, which is saved in the validation module, corresponding to the public key (paragraph [0254], “A public app developer wishing to integrate Hoverkey into their app must obtain a Registration Key (RegKey) in the form a certificate, which is embedded into the app prior to its public release. The certificate is issued by Hoverkey and signed with the Hoverkey private key. The corresponding public key is embedded in the Hoverkey App for verification of the app certificate.”)
With regards to claims 9 and 17, Yau et al. further does not expressly disclose but Campero et al. further disclose wherein the validation module transmits the access log to the server when a network connection is established with the server (paragraph [0027], “The distributed databases are controlled by a distributed database management system that controls storage of data over a network 38 of the interconnected computers and execute corresponding replication and duplication processes.”; paragraph [0031], “As shown in FIG. 3, the broker system 16 can be a compilation of many such broker systems 16 a-16 n. Each of the broker systems 16 a-16 n can comprise computer systems and associated distributed databases. The broker systems 16 a-16 n are distributed over a network of servers that act together to manage the distributed ledger 14.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to create the invention as claimed for the following reasons. 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 teachings of Yau et al by certifying a record, for the purpose of keeping track of changes or updates, based upon the enhanced user experience, security, compliance as discussed in Campero et al. (see for example paragraph [0022]). These modifications would result in ease of use and increased security, both of which are obvious benefits to the skilled artisan. Additionally, the cited references are in the field of computer security, as is the current application, and thus, are in analogous arts.
With regards to claim 42, Yau et al. teaches:
the wireless communication is near field communication (paragraph [0002], “A preferred embodiment relates to providing data protection and secure access to applications and stored data accessed via a mobile device (such as a phone or tablet) using a near-field communication (NFC) hardware token or a short range Bluetooth token.”),
wherein the smart device generates the encrypted code, which works as an authorized key to an entry of the property (paragraph [0022], “With the present invention, the user may store a master key of high cryptographic strength (128 bits or above presently) on the portable security token, and this key can be used to either directly protect an app's data encryption key or a long and complex password, from which a sufficiently long and secure encryption key can be derived. This allows the user to protect any data stored on the device with a very strong encryption key. If the device is stolen, it is then infeasible for any potential attacker to decrypt the encrypted data on it without the associated token.”), and
wherein the key fob is paired with the property so that the key fob communicates with the property via Bluetooth communication and no Internet connection is necessary in the communication between the property and the key fob (paragraph [0059], “The device communications system and the token communications system may communicate over the air, eg by Near Field Communication (NFC), Bluetooth or BLE.”).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0261411 to Yau et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180075677 to Campero et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160049033 to Sigal et al. further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0257358 to Ebrahimi et al.
With regards to claims 10 and 18, Yau et al. further does not expressly disclose but Ebrahimi et al further disclose the property is an aircraft, watercraft, hovering vehicle, land vehicle, or building (paragraph [0089], “The user typically wishes to gain access to particular service or product, as is described throughout this specification. The term “service provider” refers to an entity to which a user wishes to gain access. For example, the service provider may be a website, a physical building, an employer, a club with membership privileges, an automobile, an airline, or any other service or product.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to create the invention as claimed for the following reasons. 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 teachings of Yau et al by certifying a record, for the purpose of keeping track of changes or updates, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Ebrahimi et al, see for example [0089]. These modifications would result in ease of use and increased security, both of which are obvious benefits to the skilled artisan. Additionally, the cited references are in the field of computer security, as is the current application, and thus, are in analogous arts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 10740481 to Lakhani et al. discusses an identity management system to detect a presence of the second device within a proximity range; establish a communication channel between the first and second devices; receive the unique device identifier from the second device via the communication channel; determine whether the received identifier matches a predetermined identifier in the secure storage, to validate the second device; receive user identity information; determine whether the received information matches predetermined information, to validate the user's identity; determine whether the first and second devices maintain a predefined connection state; and permit access to the security credentials on the secure storage when the user's identity is validated, the second device is validated and the predefined connection state is maintained.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020109580 to Shreve et al. discusses a system that allows a user to access any one of multiple independent secured domain systems from a single handheld remote keyless entry device, whereupon activation of the remote keyless device by the user, an encoded request signal containing a predetermined access code is generated and transmitted by the remote keyless entry device to one of the multiple secure domain systems. And, based on the access code contained within the encoded request signal, the domain system determines the validity of the access code and transmits a corresponding encoded authorization signal to user at the transceiver device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Schneider whose telephone number is (571)270-7120. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on (571)272-6782. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/J.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626