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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20,27,28,30-32,35,36,38,39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully met by Zhang et al (USPGP 20190276273).
Regarding Claims 20,38,39, Zhang discloses a method for operating an elevator system 10 using a mobile device 200, the elevator system 10 including an elevator controller 140 and a fixedly installed trusted device 300,120, wherein the trusted device is a physical unit fixedly installed in a vicinity of an elevator landing of the elevator system, the method comprising the steps of:
operating the trusted device 300,120 to create an authentication data packet 123, the authentication data packet 123 including a unique (para. 0057), periodically changing (para. 0066) code based on an element of a predefined sequence of numbers (data);
the trusted device 120 makes the authentication data packet 123 available to be received;
the mobile device 200 receives the authentication data packet 123;
the mobile device 200 obtains a request 90.2 for operation of the elevator system 10;
the mobile device 200 sends a mobile request message (Fig. 3) to a server 20,120, wherein the mobile request message 172 includes the request for operation of the elevator system (“service request command”) and request authentication data (“authorized digital certificate”);
the server 20,120 verifies authenticity of the mobile request message based on the request authentication data included in the mobile request message, wherein the request authentication data is one of the authentication data packet 123 and an authentication token received from the server 20,120 after the authentication data packet is sent to the server 20,120 and the server 20,120 has verified the authentication data packet (Fig. 3); and
the server 20,120, after the request authentication data has been verified, sends an instruction message to the elevator controller 140, wherein the instruction message includes an instruction to operate the elevator system 10 according to the request for operation of the elevator system 10 (Figs. 4,5).
Regarding Claim 27, Zhang discloses the trusted device 120 includes a low-power radio frequency transmitter (Bluetooth BLE; para. 0056) that makes the authentication data packet available, and wherein a power of the transmitter is such that a range in which a transmission from the transmitter can be reliably received by the mobile device is limited to a range of up to 100 meters from the trusted device.
Regarding Claims 28,30 Zhang discloses the trusted device periodically creates 300 a new unique, periodically changing code that replaces the previous unique, periodically changing code (para. 0066).
Regarding Claim 31, Zhang discloses the trusted device includes near field communication technology for transmitting the unique, periodically changing code from the trusted device to the mobile device (RF card, para. 0062).
Regarding Claim 32, Zhang discloses an “authorization period” of the authorized digital certificate (para. 0066), which inherently means that there is an expiration indicator representing a time by which the authentication data packet becomes invalid.
Regarding Claim 35, Zhang discloses that the request for operation of the elevator system includes a target floor (para. 0068).
Regarding Claim 36, Zhang discloses the elevator system 10 includes at least two of the trusted devices 120,130, and wherein the authentication data packet transmitted by each of the trusted devices 120,130 is specific to an associated landing of the elevator system 10 (paras. 0052, 0053).
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.
Claim(s) 23,24,25,29,34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Regarding Claim 23, Zhang (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 20 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach that the authentication data packet includes a code based on an element of a predefined sequence of numbers based on time and the element is a current time.
Official Notice is taken that basing an authentication data packet on a current time would have been notoriously old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adapt this teaching with Zhang, as this is functionally equivalent to the Zhang authentication packet.
Regarding Claim 24, Zhang (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 20 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach that the authentication data packet includes a unique, periodically changing code formed by the element signed by a digital signature.
Official Notice is taken that forming a unique, periodically changing code by the element signed by a digital signature would have been notoriously old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adapt this teaching with Zhang, as this is functionally equivalent to the Zhang authentication packet.
Regarding Claim 25, Zhang (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 20 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach that the authentication data packet includes a unique, periodically changing code formed by the element encrypted by a symmetric encryption algorithm.
Official Notice is taken that forming a unique, periodically changing code by the element encrypted by a symmetric encryption algorithm would have been notoriously old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adapt this teaching with Zhang, as this is functionally equivalent to the Zhang authentication packet.
Regarding Claim 29, Zhang (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 28 above) discloses all features claimed, including an “authorization period” of the authorized digital certificate (para. 0066), but does not explicitly teach that the trusted device creates the new unique, periodically changing code within an interval of 0.01 minute to 10 minutes.
Official Notice is taken that creating a new unique, periodically changing code within an interval of 0.01 minute to 10 minutes would have been notoriously old and well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adapt this teaching with Zhang, as this is functionally equivalent to the Zhang authentication packet.
Regarding Claim 34, Zhang (applied here in a similar manner as claim 20 above) discloses that the method is performed with authentication between the mobile device and the server (see above). Performing the method without any authentication between the mobile device and the server or between the mobile device and the trusted device would have been considered omission of working parts, and that has been held to constitute an obvious modification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang in such a manner to omit this authentication so as to make the Zhang elevator system less complex as is known in the art to be sometimes desirable.
Claim(s) 26,33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Yang (USPGP 20190276274).
Regarding Claim 26, Zhang (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 20 above) discloses all features claimed but does not explicitly teach that the trusted device includes a display, and the trusted device makes available the authentication data packet by generating a QR-code from the authentication data packet and displaying the QR-code on the display.
Yang discloses an elevator authorization system that comprises a trusted device 102b, 120 that includes a display, and the trusted device makes available the authentication data packet by generating a QR-code from the authentication data packet (from stored authorization management apparatus 300, para. 0053; presented on a network, para. 0054) and displaying the QR-code 102b on the display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the teachings of Zhang with those of Yang so as to simplify authentication as is known by users of QR technology.
Regarding Claim 33, the QR code authentication of Yang does not require the mobile device is not paired with the trusted device.
Claim Objections
Claims 21,22,37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited show related teachings in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY DONELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
JEFFREY . DONELS
Examiner
Art Unit 2837
/JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837