DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on August 13, 2026, in response to the Non-Final Office Action and the prosecution is reopened.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-18, and 20-26. Applicant has
Previously canceled claims 19.
Added new claims 21-26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 13, 2026, was filed after the mailing date of the application 17/722012 on April 15, 2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 13, 2026, have been fully considered and they are persuasive; therefore, the prosecution is reopened.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 15-18, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biyani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2019/0036906 A1 / or “Biyani” hereinafter) in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2019/0199532 Al / or “Zhang” hereinafter) and in further view of Pak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2022/0052999 Al / or “Pak” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Biyani discloses “A method, comprising” (Para 0012 and 0087, a method of IoT device registration is disclosed):
“receiving, via a device registration circuit, a device registration request, wherein the device registration request has device property data” (Para 0056, a registration request received accompanied by a device identifier i.e., a “device property data”; and Para 0076);
“generating, via the device registration circuit and based at least in part on the device property data, an Internet of Things Universal Identification (IoT UID) in response to the registration request, wherein the IoT UID comprises one or more hashes based at least in part on:
[a meta identity component;
a service identity component];
“a network identity component” (Para 0088: generates an ID based on hash of MAC address among other components);
“and a physical identity component” (Para 0088: generates an ID based on hash of CPU ID);
“interpreting, via an IoT UID processing circuit, the IoT UID and device property data” (Para 0090: compares UID with and device chain data);
“associating, via a record management circuit, the IoT UID with the device property data via a record” (Para 0096: provides access);
[generating, via a trust analysis circuit, a trust indicator [i.e., device location, e.g., geo-fenced trust indicators (Spec, Para 0023)] based at least in part on the device property data;
storing, via the record management circuit, the trust indicator in the record; and
transmitting, via a record provisioning circuit, the record].
Biyani discloses generation of an IoT UID by hashing multiple elements, but Biyani fails to specially disclose a hash involving meta identity component and service identity component.
However, Zhang discloses “a meta identity component [i.e., identification for individuals, entities, business processes etc. see, applicant’s specification Para 190]” (Zhang, Para 0142: hash involving user identifier);
“a service identity component [i.e., IMSI, ICCID, service identifiers etc. see, applicant’s specification Para 190]” (Zhang, Para 0142: hash involving service identifier).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of generating a hash involving meta identity component and service identity component of Zhang to the system of Biyani to generate message authentication code involving multiple elements used in authenticated communication (Zhang, Para 0023) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to establish encrypted communication and ensure security (Para 0300).
But Biyani and Zhang fail to specially disclose generation of a trust indicator of a device and storing it.
However, generation of a trust indicator of a device and storing it would have obvious (see, Pak: Para 0059-0060, a certificate with trust indicator).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of generation of trust indicator of a device and storing it of Pak to the system of Biyani and Zhang to create a system where a device is able to provide bootstrap credentials (Pak, Para 0079) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to authenticate with the bootstrap server (Pak. Para 0079).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Biyani discloses “wherein the device property data includes an owner identifier value” (Para 0059).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Biyani discloses “wherein the device property data includes at least one of:
a trusted platform module key;
a media access control address;
a software version identifier;
or a firmware identifier” (Para 0088: MAC address among other properties are disclosed).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Biyani discloses “wherein associating the IoT UID with the device property data via a record comprises: including at least one of the IoT UID and the device property data in the record” (Para 0090: compares UID with and device chain data).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 9 is similar in scope of claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 2. Claim 10 is similar in scope of claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 3. Claim 11 is similar in scope of claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 4. Claim 12 is similar in scope of claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, in view of claim 9, Biyani discloses “wherein the record management circuit is further structured to identify the record in a database, based at least in part on the IoT UID” (Para 0090: compares UID with and device chain data)
.
Regarding claim 15, in view of claim 9, Biyani in view of Pak disclose “wherein the record includes a trust indicator for a device associated with the IoT UID” (Pak: Para 0059-0060, a certificate with trust indicator).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 9 is similar in scope of claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, in view of claim 16, Biyani discloses “further comprising: interpreting, via a device property data processing circuit, the device property data retrieved by the query” (Para 0090: compares UID with and device chain data).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 3. Claim 18 is similar in scope of claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, in view of claim 17, Biyani in view of Pak disclose “further comprising: denying a device associated with the IoT UID access to another device, based at least in part on the trust indicator” (Pak: Para 0059-0060, a certificate with trust indicator).
Regarding claim 21, in view of claim 1, Biyani in view of Zhang disclose “wherein the meta identity component is selected from the group consisting of identifications used by consumers, identifications used by business processes, and identifications used by facilities” (Zhang, Para 0142: hash involving user identifier).
Regarding claim 22, in view of claim 1, Biyani in view of Zhang disclose “wherein the service identity component is at least one of an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) or an integrated circuit card identifier (ICCID) (Zhang, Para 0142: hash involving service identifier).
Regarding claim 23, in view of claim 1, Biyani discloses “wherein the network identity component is selected from the group consisting of a media access control (MAC) address, an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI), and a Bluetooth ID” (Para 0088: generates an ID based on hash of MAC address among other components).
Regarding claim 24, in view of claim 1, Biyani discloses “wherein the physical identity component is at least one of a serial number or a vehicle identification number (VIN) ” (Para 0088: generates an ID based on hash of CPU ID).
Regarding claim 25, in view of claim 1, Biyani discloses “wherein the record includes a field indicating the IoT UID is embedded” (Para 0086).
Regarding claim 26, in view of claim 1, Biyani discloses “wherein the record includes a field indicating the IoT UID is virtual” (Para 0086).
Claims 5-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biyani in view of Pak and in further view of Mangalvedkar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2013/0219458 Al / or “Mangalvedkar” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 1, Biyani discloses generation unique IDs for device using multiple device characteristics (Biyani, Para 0088).
Zhang discloses generation of a message authentication code using multiple elements (Zhang, Para 0030).
Pak discloses generation of a trust indicator of a device and storing it would have obvious (see, Pak: Para 0059-0060).
But Biyani, Zahang and Pak fail to specially disclose polling an external data source to identify changes to a device property data.
However, Mangalvedkar discloses “further comprising: polling, via an update management circuit, an external data source to identify changes to a device corresponding to the device property data” (Mangalvedkar, Para 0027: any changes to the provisioning rules is updated, where the changes are related to Device ID, connection credentials i.e., “record”, custom rules, etc.);
“and updating, via the record management circuit, the record to reflect the changes” (Mangalvedkar, Para 0102: lines 1-6, the IoT device verification is performed based on a matching set of credentials i.e., a “record”; and Para 0024, the connection credentials are updated to match rule changes; Also, see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of polling an external data source to identify changes to a device property data of Mangalvedkar to the system of Biyanu, Zhang and Pak to create a system where an IoT device is able to connect to a network with updated information and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine “…wherein each IoT device can be provisioned or re-provisioned using the most up to date set of new or amended rules” (Mangalvedkar, Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Biyani and Zhang in view of Pak and in further view of Mangalvedkar disclose “wherein: the device property data indicates that a corresponding device is a Greenfield device [i.e., when an end user turns the device on after purchasing from the manufacturer (see, Specification, Para 0013)]; and associating, the IoT UID with the device property data via the record comprises: including an identifier in the record that indicates the device is a Greenfield device” (Mangalvedkar, Para 0106, an unprovisioned IoT device i.e., a “Greenfield device” is provisioned using device credentials and metadata). [see claim 5 for motivation]
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 1, Biyani and Zhang in view of Pak and in further view of Mangalvedkar disclose “wherein: the device property data indicates that a corresponding device is a Brownfield device [i.e., previously deployed IoT device (see, Specification, Para 0239)]; and associating, the IoT UID with the device property data via the record comprises: including an identifier in the record that indicates the device is a Brownfield device” (Mangalvedkar, Para 0027, a previously provisioned IoT device i.e., a “Brownfield device” is provisioned using device credentials and metadata). [see claim 5 for motivation]
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 1, Biyani and Zhang in view of Pak and in further view of Mangalvedkar disclose “further comprising interpreting a device event message and updating a record in an IoT device registry based at least in part on the device event message” (Mangalvedkar, Para 0024: 17-20, “Based on the rules statement, the provisioning service 109 may issue new or updated connection credentials 150 to the IoT device 101 in accordance with the rules statement generated by the rules engine 117”). [see claim 5 for motivation]
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 5. Claim 14 is similar in scope of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ross et al. (US 9813400 B2) discloses “…create a respective authentication token that is specific to a respective identifier and user credential of a respective Internet user, a respective device identifier, and the respective identity provider application, and for authorizing respective access by the plurality of Internet users to a respective requested one of the Internet services provided by each Internet service provider using the respective created authentication tokens and respective identifiers for each of the respective requested Internet services” (Abstract).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431
