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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 20, 2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-18, and 20. Applicant has
Amended claims 1, 9 , and 16.
Previously cancelled claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 11, 2025 with respect to amended claims have been considered but they are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see 103 rejection below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant has amended independent claims; therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant has amended independent claim 16; therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
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 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 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; and
a physical identity component” (Para 0088: generates an ID i.e., “IoT UID” based on a hash function using “…the IOT devices 102 can register the hash of unique response information, MAC address, CPU ID, disk ID, OS image, electronic wallet address, etc., to generate the unique device ID so that the IOT devices”);
“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 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].
But Biyani fails 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 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 (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).
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).
Pak discloses generation of a trust indicator of a device and storing it would have obvious (see, Pak: Para 0059-0060).
But Biyani 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 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 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 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 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.
Sreenivasa Prasad Sista (US 20140237568 A1) discloses “…generating the device identification signature string 405 is referred to as creating a hash or hashing. In another embodiment, the unique-identification tool 1800'' may concatenate the device information 410 and event information 415, and utilize a hashing function, such as the MD5 message-digest algorithm or secure hash algorithm (SHA-1) to generate device identification signature string 405” (Par 0049).
Emigh et al. (US 9922539 B1) discloses “…alarm processing application 118 may generate a fault key that is a hash or other algorithmic digest of the identity of the network node associated with the alarm, the identity of the equipment component associated with the alarm, and optionally the identity of one or more sub-components associated with the alarm” (Col 10: lines 10-15).
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
/MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights