DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 September 2025 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 14 and 15 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, and 19 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
For Applicant’s convenience, it is noted that Applicant has stated that “Cha does not disclose the feature in which ‘receiver SPBL verification and sender SPBL verification included in the certificate negotiation are cross-matched with the generated receiving SPBL list and transmitting SPBL list, thereby simultaneously determining the transmission and reception rights of the SPBLs of the first and second devices’” (pages 11-12 of the present response, quotation marks Applicant’s). However, it is not clear what is being quoted here; the quoted passage appears in neither the claims nor disclosure of the present application. Nevertheless, as noted above, new grounds of rejection are set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they include non-English text (see Figure 10 before step 10001). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and in view of Applicant’s remarks (see pages 6-8 of the present response).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and in view of Applicant’s remarks (see pages 6-8 of the present response). The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is also withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
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, 2, 6, 11, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al, US Patent Application Publication 2016/0241537, in view of Sudama et al, US Patent 5619657.
In reference to Claim 1, Cha discloses a method performed by a first device (paragraphs 0006, 0033, 0105-0107, transferring profile), where the method includes obtaining information about a bundle to be transmitted to a second device (paragraphs 0048, 0058, 0073); transmitting identification information of the bundle to the second device (paragraphs 0073, 0107, transmitting for authentication purposes); receiving certificate negotiation information generated by the second device, where the certificate negotiation information includes receiver secondary platform bundle loader (SPBL) verification information and sender SPBL verification information determined based on the identification information, and extracting the receiver SPBL verification information and sender SPBL verification information from the certificate negotiation information (paragraphs 0074-0075, 0108; see also paragraph 0102); generating a receiving SPBL list and transmitting SPBL list based on both the identification information of the bundle and a pre-stored verifiable SPBL list (paragraphs 0076-0077, 0109); determining whether an SPBL of the first device is authorized to send the bundle or an SPBL of the second device is authorized to receive the bundle based on the receiver and sender SPBL information and the receiving SPBL list (paragraphs 0074-0077, 0080, 0110-0111); and if the receiver SPBL verification information is included in the receiving SPBL list or the sender SPBL verification information is included in the transmitting SPBL list (paragraphs 0074-0077, 0080, 0112, authentication against list), transmitting authentication information of the first device to the second device based on the determination (paragraphs 0060, 0074-0077, 0080-0081, 0112-0116). However, although Cha discloses performing authentication of whether the second (receiving) device is authorized to receive the bundle (see, for example, paragraphs 0074-0077 and 0110-0111), Cha does not explicitly disclose also determining whether the first device is authorized to send the bundle.
Sudama discloses a method that includes mutual authentication of both valid senders and receivers of information (see column 6, lines 43-49; see also Figure 3 and column 10, lines 17-57, mutual authentication and determination of a trusted sender). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cha to include determining authorization for both sending and receiving information, in order to increase security and trust (see Sudama, column 4, lines 25-51).
In reference to Claim 2, Cha and Sudama further disclose the identification information and verification information based on the identification information (see Cha, paragraph 0102; see also Sudama, column 10, line 64-column 11, line 13).
In reference to Claim 6, Cha and Sudama further disclose receiving authentication information and determining validity of the authentication information (see Cha, paragraphs 0060, 0074-0077, 0080-0081, 0112-0116; see also Sudama, column 10, lines 17-57).
Claims 11, 12, and 19 are directed to devices having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 1, 2, and 6, respectively, and are rejected based on a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Randle et al, US Patent 7949871, discloses a method that provides for mutual authentication and authorization in a network using certificates.
Nagara, US Patent 8316241, discloses a method in which devices mutually determine whether they are authorized and perform mutual authentication.
Pai et al, US Patent Application Publication 2006/0123455, discloses a system in which senders and receivers are authenticated to determine authorization to perform an action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492