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 .
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Regarding the rejection(s) of claims under 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/18/2025, in view of the amended claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn, however, upon further review the claims are further maintained under Wollersheim et al. (US 20070287433 A1, referred to as Wollersheim), in view of Mangalvedkar et al. (US 20200177589 A1, referred to as Mangalvedkar) and Namiranian (US 20190028884 A1, referred to as Namiranian)
It is noted that this amendment seems to be amended from claim 3 and 12 however only claims 12 and 2 were cancelled. This raises a 112(b) indefiniteness due to the redundancy.
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the arguments filed on 11/18/2025, in which, claims 1, 3-11, and 13-23 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 is indefinite because it is redundant with claim 1. Claim 1 already recites "wherein the change is determined by analyzing historical device property data." Claim 3 merely repeats this same limitation without adding any additional scope or limitations. As such, claim 3 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim any subject matter beyond that already claimed in claim 1, rendering it indefinite. Applicant should either cancel claim 3 or amend it to include additional limitations that provide patentable weight beyond the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 10-12 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollersheim et al. (US 20070287433 A1, referred to as Wollersheim), in view of Mangalvedkar et al. (US 20200177589 A1, referred to as Mangalvedkar).
In reference to claim 1, An apparatus, comprising: a property-monitoring circuit (Wollersheim: [0027] and [0059] Provides for device detection application, which is structured to monitor device/subscriber combinations in real time on the network.)
generate a query for device property data for an Internet of Things (IoT) device to an IoT device registrar server (Wollersheim: [0036] and [0074] Provides for query mechanism where device property data (IMEI/IMSI) is requested from a registrar-equivalent network element (EIR))
wherein the query comprises an IoT UID having one or more hashes based at least in part on two or more components (Wollersheim: [0034] and [0067] Provides for a hash-based unique identifier is explicitly constructed from two or more input components (IMEI and IMSI))
Interpret the device property data received form the IoT device registrar server to determine change in the device property data (Wollersheim: [0069] and [0081] Provides for interpretation of received device data to determine whether a change in device/subscriber state has occurred.)
Wherein the change is determined by analyzing historical device property data (Wollersheim: [0082]-[0083] Provides for historical comparison of device signatures over time, where previously stored signature data is used as the baseline to identify changes in the active device.)
Responsive to the change, generate a notification of the change (Wollersheim: [0050] and [0081] Provides for notification generation, where detection of a new or changed device/subscriber combination triggers an outbound notification event.)
Although Wollersheim teaches sending change notification to an external system (transmits to downstream provisioning or management systems rather than back to the registrar server itself [0042] and [0069]). Wollersheim does not explicitly teach sending change notification to the IOT device registrar server.
Transmit the notification of the change to the IoT device registrar server (Mangalvedkar: [0074] Provides for transmitting status and change-related information back to a registrar endpoint via a callback mechanism.)
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 Wollersheim, which provides an apparatus for monitoring IoT device properties through hash-based unique identifiers, querying device registrar servers, detecting changes through historical data analysis, and generating notifications, with the teachings of Mangalvedkar, which introduces transmitting change notifications back to the registrar server via callback mechanisms. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Mangalvedkar's bidirectional communication approach into Wollersheim's device monitoring system to enable closed-loop notification. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to ensure that the IoT device registrar server maintains up-to-date information about device state changes.
In reference to claim 3, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the change is determined by analyzing historical device property data (Wollersheim: [0082]-[0083] Provides for historical comparison of device signatures over time, where previously stored signature data is used as the baseline to identify changes in the active device.)
In reference to claim 10, , A method comprising: generating a query for device property data for an Internet of Things (IoT) device to an IoT device registrar server (Wollersheim: [0027] and [0059] Provides for device detection application, which is structured to monitor device/subscriber combinations in real time on the network. Wollersheim: [0036] and [0074] Provides for query mechanism where device property data (IMEI/IMSI) is requested from a registrar-equivalent network element (EIR))
wherein the query comprises an IoT UID having one or more hashes based at least in part on two or more components (Wollersheim: [0034] and [0067] Provides for a hash-based unique identifier is explicitly constructed from two or more input components (IMEI and IMSI))
Interpret the device property data received form the IoT device registrar server to determine change in the device property data (Wollersheim: [0069] and [0081] Provides for interpretation of received device data to determine whether a change in device/subscriber state has occurred.)
Wherein the change is determined by analyzing historical device property data (Wollersheim: [0082]-[0083] Provides for historical comparison of device signatures over time, where previously stored signature data is used as the baseline to identify changes in the active device.)
Responsive to the change, generate a notification of the change (Wollersheim: [0050] and [0081] Provides for notification generation, where detection of a new or changed device/subscriber combination triggers an outbound notification event.)
Although Wollersheim teaches sending change notification to an external system (transmits to downstream provisioning or management systems rather than back to the registrar server itself [0042] and [0069]). Wollersheim does not explicitly teach sending change notification to the IOT device registrar server.
Transmit the notification of the change to the IoT device registrar server (Mangalvedkar: [0074] Provides for transmitting status and change-related information back to a registrar endpoint via a callback mechanism.)
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 Wollersheim, which provides an apparatus for monitoring IoT device properties through hash-based unique identifiers, querying device registrar servers, detecting changes through historical data analysis, and generating notifications, with the teachings of Mangalvedkar, which introduces transmitting change notifications back to the registrar server via callback mechanisms. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Mangalvedkar's bidirectional communication approach into Wollersheim's device monitoring system to enable closed-loop notification. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to ensure that the IoT device registrar server maintains up-to-date information about device state changes.
In reference to claim 11, the method of claim 10, wherein the query is initiated by at least one of: the IoT device, a user of the IoT device, a seller of the IoT device, a purchaser of the IoT device, a manufacturer of the IoT device, or the IoT device registrar server (Mangalvedkar [0064]-[0066] and [0094]-[0099] Provides for IoT device itself initiating a registration query directly to the provisioning/registrar server and the manufacturer directly programming the query initiation mechanism into the device.)
In reference to claim 21, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the two or more components includes at least one of: a meta identity component; a service identity component; a network identity component; or a physical identity component (Wollersheim: [0034], [0067] and [0006]-[0007] Provides for multiple identity component types as hash inputs.)
In reference to claim 22, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the two or more components includes: a meta identity component; a service identity component; a network identity component; and a physical identity component (Wollersheim: [0034], [0067] and [0006]-[0007] Provides for multiple identity component types as hash inputs.)
In reference to claim 23, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the two or more components are based at least in part on the device property data (Wollersheim: [0067]-[0068] and [0081] Provides for hash components derived directly from device property data.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollersheim et al. (US 20070287433 A1, referred to as Wollersheim), in view of Mangalvedkar et al. (US 20200177589 A1, referred to as Mangalvedkar), in view of Yang (US 20190250898 A1, referred to as Yang).
In reference to claim 4, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the property-monitoring circuit determines that the IoT device has reached end-of-life based at least in part on a received user input indicating that the IoT device has reached end-of-life (Yang: [0048] teaches a vendor (type of user) indicating an end-of-life device status. Yang paragraph [0071] further teaches the system's capabilities of receiving manual user input about device status, such as software updates or end-of-life notifications.)
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 Wollersheim in view of Mangalvedkar, which involve automated monitoring and notification based on device data changes, with the teachings of Yang, which detail manual user input for indicating device status changes including end-of-life. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to integrate Yang’s approach of receiving user inputs into Wollersheim-Mangalvedkar’s property-monitoring framework. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a end-of-life monitoring system that accommodates both automated data-driven updates and user-driven inputs, thereby enhancing the responsiveness and accuracy of device management systems.
In reference to claim 5, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the property-monitoring circuit determines that the IoT device has reached end-of-life based at least in part on a received security notification indicating the IoT device has been, or is being, decommissioned (Yang: [0048] provides for a system that determines a device's end-of-life status based on vendor information and generates a notification reflecting this status. Yang paragraph [0099] further teaches the capability of a notification component to initiate notifications based on various statuses, including end-of-life.)
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 Wollersheim in view of Mangalvedkar, which involve querying and interpreting device data for change detection, with the teachings of Yang, which include the generation and receipt of security notifications specifically indicating end-of-life or decommissioning statuses. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to integrate Yang’s security notification approach into Wollersheim-Mangalvedkars framework for monitoring device properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to ensure a more targeted and explicit handling of end-of-life status, enhancing the apparatus’s ability to manage lifecycle events of IoT devices effectively.
In reference to claim 6, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the property-monitoring circuit determines that the IoT device has reached end-of-life based at least in part on a received decommission notification indicating the IoT device has been, or is being, decommissioned (Yang: [0048] describes a system that assesses a device's end-of-life status based on vendor information and generates a notification for the same. Yang paragraph [0099] further elaborates on the role of a notification component capable of initiating notifications based on end-of-life status among other triggers.)
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 Wollersheim in view of Mangalvedkar, focused on querying and interpreting device property data, with the teachings of Yang, which detail the generation and handling of notifications explicitly indicating device decommissioning. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to integrate Yang’s specific notification mechanism into Wollersheim-Mangalvedkar’s framework for property monitoring. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to enhance the apparatus’s capability to accurately manage the lifecycle events of IoT devices, specifically by enabling clearer and more direct notifications related to device decommissioning.
In reference to claim 14, The method of claim 10, further comprising: determining that the IoT device has reached end-of-life based at least in part on a received user input indicating that the IoT device has reached end-of-life (Yang: [0048] teaches a vendor (type of user) indicating an end-of-life device status. Yang paragraph [0071] further teaches the system's capabilities of receiving manual user input about device status, such as software updates or end-of-life notifications.)
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 Wollersheim in view of Mangalvedkar, which involve automated monitoring and notification based on device data changes, with the teachings of Yang, which detail manual user input for indicating device status changes including end-of-life. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to integrate Yang’s approach of receiving user inputs into Wollersheim-Mangalvedkar’s property-monitoring framework. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a end-of-life monitoring system that accommodates both automated data-driven updates and user-driven inputs, thereby enhancing the responsiveness and accuracy of device management systems.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollersheim et al. (US 20070287433 A1, referred to as Wollersheim), in view of Mangalvedkar et al. (US 20200177589 A1, referred to as Mangalvedkar), in view of Karimli et al. (US 20180234787 A1, referred to as Karimli).
In reference to claim 7, The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a display circuit structured to display the notification of the change (Karimli: [0060] teaches that IoT devices such as televisions and refrigerators can include a display device for presenting content, including notifications, to users through a UI module capable of generating and presenting graphical representations of such notifications.)
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 Wollersheim in view of Mangalvedkar, which involve managing IoT devices and notifications through a web portal, with the teachings of Karimli, which include the capabilities of a UI module and display circuit to visually present notifications directly on the IoT device. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to integrate Karimli’s display and UI technologies into Wollersheim-Mangalvedkar’s framework for enhanced user interaction and immediate visibility of device status changes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to improve the user interface and ensure that notifications about device updates or changes are directly and effectively communicated to the device user.
In reference to claim 8, The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the display circuit comprises a Single Pane of Glass (SPG) display circuit included in an SPG system (Karimli: [0060] further provides or an IOT device with a display device and UI module that can generate and present user interface and notification on the display, which represents a Single Pane of Glass (SPG) display circuit in a SPG system.)
In reference to claim 9, The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the SPG system comprises a graphical user interface (Karimli: [0060] Provides that an IOT device can include a graphical user interface and present notifications.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollersheim et al. (US 20070287433 A1, referred to as Wollersheim), in view of Mangalvedkar et al. (US 20200177589 A1, referred to as Mangalvedkar), in view of Bawa et al. (US 20200099749 A1, referred to as Bawa).
In reference to claim 13, The method of claim 10, wherein the change comprises a security event (Bawa: [0065], [0077], [0081] Provides for the generation of security alerts in response to potential unauthorized access attempts, which are communicated to users and IoT security managers for further analysis to confirm the security event.)
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 Wollersheim in view of Mangalvedkar, which involve monitoring and notifying about changes in device data, with the teachings of Bawa, which include identifying and responding to security events specifically. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to integrate Bawa’s security event detection and notification mechanism into Wollersheim-Mangalvedkar’s framework for property monitoring. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to enhance the security monitoring capabilities of the IoT system, ensuring that potential security threats are promptly identified and addressed.
In reference to claim 16, The method of claim 10, further comprising generating a security value indicating that the IoT device may be subject to a security event (Bawa: [0065], [0077], [0081] provides for the generation of security alerts in response to information received that suggests an unauthorized access attempt may have occurred. These alerts serve as a security value, informing users and IoT security managers about the potential security risk.)
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 Wollersheim in view of Mangalvedkar, which involve monitoring and notifying about changes in device data, with the teachings of Bawa, which include generating security alerts as a response to potential security threats. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to integrate Bawa’s method of generating security alerts into Wollersheim-Mangalvedkar’s framework for monitoring property changes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to enhance the apparatus’s ability to identify potential security events and provide actionable security values, thus improving the overall security responsiveness of the IoT management system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollersheim et al. (US 20070287433 A1, referred to as Wollersheim), in view of Mangalvedkar et al. (US 20200177589 A1, referred to as Mangalvedkar), in view of Ektare et al. (US 20190098028 A1, referred to as Ektare).
In reference to claim 15, The method of claim 10, further comprising generating a quarantine value indicating that a device should be quarantined (Ektare: [0076] provides for defining a management policy to quarantine an IoT device if it deviates from normal behavior beyond a specified threshold. Ektare paragraph [0262] further provides updating or defining device management policies based on user-specified conditions that trigger quarantine of the device.)
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 Wollersheim in view of Mangalvedkar, which involve monitoring IoT devices and managing changes, with the teachings of Ektare, which include creating quarantine values based on specific behavioral deviations. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to integrate Ektare’s method of generating quarantine values into Wollersheim-Mangalvedkar’s framework for property monitoring. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to enhance the security and operational integrity of the IoT system by proactively isolating devices that exhibit potentially harmful or abnormal behaviors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollersheim et al. (US 20070287433 A1, referred to as Wollersheim), in view of Mangalvedkar et al. (US 20200177589 A1, referred to as Mangalvedkar), in view of Lee et al. (US 20210297978 A1, referred to as Lee).
In reference to claim 17,The method of claim 10, further comprising generating an ownership notification indicating that an ownership value corresponding to the device has changed (Lee: [0009] provides for the importance of reregistering ownership of an electronic device when it is transferred to a new user. Lee Fig. 5 and [0090], along with Fig. 6 and [0106], provide that the device sends an update signal or acknowledgment to the server upon receiving or updating device registration information, which can include ownership changes.)
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 Wollersheim in view of Mangalvedkar, which involve monitoring and managing device property data, with the teachings of Lee, which include the generation and transmission of notifications specifically indicating changes in device ownership. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to integrate Lee’s approach of notifying changes in ownership into Wollersheim-Mangalvedkar’s framework for property monitoring. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to ensure comprehensive management of IoT devices, particularly in scenarios involving ownership transfer, thereby enhancing the security and reliability of the IoT management system
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 20210337031 A1, referred to as Patil), in view of Namiranian. (US 20190028884 A1, referred to as Namiranian) in view of Wollersheim et al. (US 20070287433 A1, referred to as Wollersheim) in further view of Yang (US 20190250898 A1, referred to as Yang).
In reference to claim 18, generating a query for properties data to an IoT device registrar server (Patil: [0034] provides for generating a query to the MNO entity device (IOT device registrar)).
Patil discloses that properties are IOT properties (paragraph [0034] “device specific”)
Interpreting properties received from the IoT device registrar server to identify a set of properties corresponding to the device (Patil: [0034] provides for that addressing data (properties) are received by the responding MNO device.)
Transmitting information to the IoT device registrar server (Patil: [0034] which further provides for that the information is capable of being transmitted to the MNO device.)
Patil does not explicitly disclose that IOT properties comprise IOT UID data corresponding to the device, wherein the IOT UIDs in the set of IOT UIDs have two or more components, identifying a first UID list comprising a first subset of the set of properties to be used, identifying a second UID list comprising a second subset of the set of properties, different from the first subset, to be retired, the transmitted information comprises the first data list and the second data list, and determining that a device has reached end-of-life. However, Namiranian teaches:
Wherein properties comprises; Internet of Things Universal Identification (IoT UID) data corresponding to the device (Namiranian: [0019]-[0029] Provides for interpreting a received set of multiple device identifiers (ICCID, EID, IMSI) that collectively correspond to a specific device.)
Identifying a first UID list comprising a first subset of the set of properties to be reused (Namiranian: [0025]-[0029] Provides for explicitly categorizing a specific subset of device identifiers as designated for reuse and placing them in a reuse pool.)
Identifying a second UID list comprising a second subset of the set of properties, different from the first subset, to be retired, (Namiranian: [0011] and [0024] Provides for a distinct second categorization of identifiers designated for permanent retirement via garbage collection and permanent unusability.)
Wherein information comprises; the first data list and the second data list, (Namiranian: Namiranian: [0011] and [0024] Provides for a distinct second categorization of identifiers designated for permanent retirement via garbage collection and permanent unusability. Namiranian: [0025]-[0029] Provides for explicitly categorizing a specific subset of device identifiers as designated for reuse and placing them in a reuse pool.)
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 Patil, who teaches a system where a networked MNO entity device executes a device-specific SDK query and returns address data for an IoT hub device, and this data is used to establish communications with the user device, with the teachings of Namiranian, who introduces the concept of IoT Universal Identification (UID) data and managing UIDs for privacy and security purposes. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to integrate Namiranian's UID management system with Patil's networked device communications framework. This integration would be beneficial for enhancing security and privacy in IoT networks by efficiently managing and updating UID data. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to ensure secure and private communication in IoT networks while maintaining efficient device identification and tracking.
Patil in view of Namiranian do not explicitly disclose wherein the IOT UIDs in the set of IOT UIDs have two or more components and determining that a device has reached end of life. However Mangalvedkar discloses:
Wherein the query comprises an IoT UID having one or more hashes based at least in part on two or more components (Wollersheim: [0034] and [0067] Provides for a hash-based unique identifier is explicitly constructed from two or more input components (IMEI and IMSI))
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 Patil in view of Namiranian, which provides an apparatus for monitoring IoT device properties and detecting changes through queries to an IoT device registrar server, with the teachings of Mangalvedkar, which introduces the use of hashed IoT UIDs based on multiple device components for device identification. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Mangalvedkar's secure identification method into Patil-Namiranian's IoT management system to enhance device identification accuracy and security. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to improve device authentication by creating tamper-resistant identifiers.
Determining that a device has reached end-of-life, (Yang: [0048] provides for a method of determining a device has reached end-of-life status according to a vendor website and creating a notification of the status.)
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 Patil in view of Namiranian, who together teach managing and transmitting IoT UID data within a networked device communication system, with the teachings of Yang, who discloses a method for determining end-of-life status for devices based on vendor information. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Yang’s end-of-life determination method into the UID management and communication framework taught by Patil and Namiranian. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification for maintaining updated and secure IoT networks by timely identifying devices that have reached end-of-life and require attention or replacement
In reference to claim 19, the method of claim 18, wherein either of the first subset or the second subset of the set of IoT UIDs is an empty subset, (Namiranian: [0025]-[0030] Provides for binary, mutually exclusive determination that routes a device identifier entirely into either the reuse category or the available-for-any category.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 20210337031 A1, referred to as Patil), in view of Namiranian. (US 20190028884 A1, referred to as Namiranian) in view of Wollersheim et al. (US 20070287433 A1, referred to as Wollersheim) in further view of Yang (US 20190250898 A1, referred to as Yang) in further view of Di Girolamo et al. (US 20200322884 A1, referred to as Girolamo).
In reference to claim 20, Storing the information, in the IoT device registrar server (Patil: [0034] provides for the ability to store information in the MNO device.)
Patil in view of Ward in further view of Yang do not explicitly disclose wherein the information is the second UID list, comprising the second subset of the set of IoT UIDs to be retired in a registry, and wherein the registry is a global retired UID registry, however, Ward further teaches:
Wherein the information is the second UID list, comprising the second subset of the set of IoT UIDs to be retired in a registry (Namiranian: [0011] and [0024] Provides for a distinct second categorization of identifiers designated for permanent retirement via garbage collection and permanent unusability.)
Patil in view of Namiranian in view of Mangalvedkar in further view of Yang do not explicitly discloses that the registry is a global retired UID registry, however, Girolamo teaches:
Wherein registry is global retired UID registry (Girolamo: [0109] provides for that when a device is decommissioned or retired the device should be added to the list of black listed devices. Girolamo paragraph [0074] further provides for that the devices maintained in the EIR could be identified by its own device identification.)
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 Patil in view of Namiranian in further view of Yang by combining their network and UID management approaches with a method to determine and notify end-of-life status for IoT devices, with the teachings of Girolamo, who introduces a global registry for blacklisting decommissioned or retired IoT devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Girolamo's global registry concept into Patil, Ward, and Yang’s framework to enhance security and lifecycle management of IoT devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to establish a more secure and efficient way to track and manage the status of IoT devices at a global scale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDAN EDWARD SHAUGHNESSY whose telephone number is (703)756-1423. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Nickerson, can be reached at telephone number (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/usptoautomated-interview-request-air-form.
/A.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432