DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 each contains the trademark/trade name “Bluetooth ®”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a type of communication specifically Bluetooth which can change and be updated over time and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected upon the same rationale.
Claims 10-12 and 14-15 depend from claim 9 and are therefore rejected upon the same rationale.
Claims 13 and 17-20 depend from claim 16 and are therefore rejected upon the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites “The information handling system of the claim 19 further comprising:”, which renders the claims indefinite. Claim limitation recites the “information handling system” while claim 19 is off “a wireless peripheral device”. It is unclear if claim 13 is supposed to further narrow claim 9 which is an “information handling system” or if it is supposed to be off of claim 19 which is “a wireless peripheral device”. For purposes of examination the Examiner has taken it as depending from claim 19 as recited.
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(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0120500 A1) hereafter Sharma, in view of Ricci et al. (WO 2013/074897 A1) hereafter Ricci.
As per claim 1, Sharma discloses an information handling system comprising:
the console executing computer readable program code of an automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to receive, via a wireless interface adapter, a symmetric key from a backend management server (Sharma, paragraph [0032]; discloses that the vehicle includes a console which has a Human Machine Interface. As shown in paragraph [0035] the Human Machine Interface or head unit has an application in the vehicle which pairs with the mobile device. This application acts as the executable computer readable program code of an automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent. Paragraph [0090]; discloses that the app or application can use wired or wireless communications to communicate with the server. Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; discloses that backend server sends the key to both the vehicle and the mobile device. This is a symmetric key which is used to encrypt the payload data and decrypt the data during the pairing process. Paragraph [0035]; discloses that the backend system can be maintained by an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or a third party);
the console executing computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system to, via the wireless interface adapter, receive a symmetric key-wrapped secure pairing key data package from a wireless peripheral device as part of a pairing query (Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; discloses that backend server sends the key to both the vehicle and the mobile device. This is a symmetric key which is used to encrypt the payload data and decrypt the data during the pairing process. As part of the pairing process the vehicle receives the pairing data package which is encrypted and uses the symmetric key to decrypt the data. Paragraphs [0061]-[0064]; discloses that as part of the pairing process the payload data is encrypted and provided to the vehicle for decryption and use. In this case it includes device information); and
the console to, with the symmetric key, unwrap the symmetric key-wrapped secure pairing key data package to obtain pairing key data used to automatically Bluetooth ®(BT) pair the backend coupled information handling system to the wireless peripheral device when the pairing key data matches peripheral device pairing key data at the wireless peripheral device (Paragraphs [0061]-[0066]; discloses that as part of the pairing process the payload data is encrypted and provided to the vehicle for decryption and use. In this case it includes device information. The information is matched to the peripheral device data to determine if it authenticated and the pairing is allowed. Paragraph [0052]; discloses that the pairing is part of the Bluetooth pairing process).
While Sharma discloses a vehicle including a console, it is not explicit that the console includes a hardware processor; a memory device and a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and memory device.
Ricci, which like Sharma talks about a vehicle console, teaches it is known for the console to include a hardware processor; a memory device and a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and memory device (Ricci paragraph [0027]; teaches it is known for a vehicle console similar to what is shown in Sharma to include its own processor, memory and power source. Figure 3, Paragraph [0100]; teaches that the power source includes a power control module or power management unit which includes a power source for the console. Paragraph [0129]; teaches that like Sharma the console includes wireless communications and connects to a mobile device or smart phone. Paragraph [0166]; teaches that the vehicle connects to the device using Bluetooth which is the same as Sharma. Since Sharma already discloses including a console which communicates with wireless devices using Bluetooth, it would have been obvious for that console to include its own processor, memory and power control so it can carry out the functions shown Ricci).
The primary reference Sharma establishes receiving a symmetric key from the backend management server which can be operated by the OEM. Sharma receives the encrypted package from the wireless peripheral device as part of the pairing query. Sharma decrypts the package to obtain the pairing data as part of the Bluetooth pairing process, when the pairing data matches the data at the wireless peripheral device. While Sharma discloses a vehicle including a console, it is not explicit that the console includes a hardware processor; a memory device and a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and memory device.
The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference Sharma is not explicit that the console includes a processor, memory and power management unit.
The Ricci reference establishes it is known for a console in a vehicle which connects to mobile devices to include its own processor, memory and power management unit. Ricci establishes that this type of console and hardware was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself that is in the substitution of the console shown in the Sharma reference with the console including a processor, memory and power management unit taught in Ricci.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Therefore, from this teaching of Ricci, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma, with the console including a processor, memory and power management unit taught in Ricci, for the purposes of using known hardware to implement the device shown in Sharma. Since Sharma already discloses including a console which communicates with wireless devices using Bluetooth, it would have been obvious for that console to include its own processor, memory and power control so it can carry out the functions shown Ricci.
As per claim 2, the combination of Sharma and Ricci teaches the information handling system of claim 1; Sharma further discloses further comprising: the hardware processor of the information handling system to execute the computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to unwrap the symmetrical key wrapped pairing key data package using the copy of the symmetric key to yield the pairing key data that includes an out-of-band (OOB) temporary key and a peripheral device identification (PD ID) (Sharma Paragraph [0028]; discloses that a temporary key is part of the decrypted data package. Paragraph [0063]; discloses that the data includes the device identification or pairing ID).
As per claim 4, the combination of Sharma and Ricci teaches the information handling system of claim 1; Sharma further discloses further comprising: the hardware processor executing computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to automatically verify and pair with the wireless peripheral device by detecting a transmitted PD ID from the wireless peripheral device that matches a PD ID unwrapped from the symmetrical key-wrapped pairing key data package at the information handling system (Sharma Paragraphs [0061]-[0066]; discloses that as part of the pairing process the payload data is encrypted and provided to the vehicle for decryption and use. In this case it includes device information. The information is matched to the peripheral device data to determine if it authenticated and the pairing is allowed. Paragraph [0052]; discloses that the pairing is part of the Bluetooth pairing process).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0120500 A1) hereafter Sharma, in view of Ricci et al. (WO 2013/074897 A1) hereafter Ricci, further in view of Bukshpun et al. (US 2010/0211787 A1) hereafter Bukshpun.
As per claim 3, the combination of Sharma and Ricci teaches the information handling system of claim 1; Sharma further discloses further comprising: the hardware processor of the backend coupled information handling system to execute the computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to unwrap the symmetrical key-wrapped pairing key data package using the copy of the symmetric key to yield the pairing key data that includes seed and a peripheral device identification (PD ID) (Sharma Paragraph [0028]; discloses that a temporary key is part of the decrypted data package. Sharma establishes that the data includes seed data. Paragraph [0063]; discloses that the data includes the device identification or pairing ID as well as other data); and
the hardware processor executing code instructions of a hash loop at the information handling system to calculate an out-of-band (OOB) temporary key for automatic verification and pairing with the wireless peripheral device (Sharma Paragraph [0028]; discloses that a temporary key is part of the decrypted data package. This is used to pair with the wireless device as shown in paragraph [0060] which establishes hashing algorithms to generate the key and as part of the verification process).
The combination of Sharma and Ricci fails to explicitly disclose that the key data includes index.
Bukshpun, which like the combination talks about key generation, teaches it is known to include seed, index and identification data in the key generation (Bukshpun paragraph [0066]; teaches it is known to include seed, index and identification data and that in doing so this allows the system to be reliable and secure node validation at the device level. Since the combination already establishes generating a temporary keys using seed data and identification data, it would have been obvious to include index data to reliably validate at the device level as shown in Bukshpun).
Therefore, from this teaching of Bukshpun, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma and Ricci, with including seed, index and identification data in the key generation as taught in Bukshpun, for the purposes of reliably validating at the device level as shown in Bukshpun.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0120500 A1) hereafter Sharma, in view of Ricci et al. (WO 2013/074897 A1) hereafter Ricci, further in view of Moy et al. (US 2016/0128114 A1) hereafter Moy.
As per claim 5, the combination of Sharma and Ricci teaches the information handling system of claim 1; Sharma further discloses further comprising: the hardware processor executing computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to automatically verify and pair with the wireless peripheral device when a detected within a certain distance from a wireless peripheral device (Sharma paragraph [0052]; discloses that it detects whether the device is within a certain distance).
However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose that it detects the distance based on received signal strength indicator (RSSI) level from a wireless peripheral device meets or exceeds a RSSI threshold level.
Moy, which like the combination talks about pairing devices, teaches it is known to detect the distance based on received signal strength indicator (RSSI) level from a wireless peripheral device meets or exceeds a RSSI threshold level (Moy paragraph [0082]; teaches it is known to detect the RSSI level and to determine that the RSSI level is above a threshold. This indicates that the device is within a predetermined distance. From this it would have been obvious as shown in Moy to use the RSSI level to determine the distance discussed in Sharma).
The primary reference Sharma establishes receiving a symmetric key from the backend management server which can be operated by the OEM. Sharma receives the encrypted package from the wireless peripheral device as part of the pairing query. Sharma decrypts the package to obtain the pairing data as part of the Bluetooth pairing process, when the pairing data matches the data at the wireless peripheral device. The Ricci reference establishes it is known for a console in a vehicle which connects to mobile devices to include its own processor, memory and power management unit. However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose where the distance between devices is determined using the RSSI value.
The Moy reference establishes it is known to determine proximity by determining the RSSI value and compare it with a set threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the information handling system of Sharma and Ricci the ability to determine the proximity between devices using the RSSI value as taught by Moy since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Moy, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma and Ricci, the ability to determine the proximity between devices using the RSSI value as taught by Moy, for the purposes of using determining the distance between devices using known techniques. From this it would have been obvious as shown in Moy to use the RSSI level to determine the distance discussed in Sharma.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0120500 A1) hereafter Sharma, in view of Ricci et al. (WO 2013/074897 A1) hereafter Ricci, further in view of Kokku et al. (US 2009/0310783 A1) hereafter Kokku.
As per claim 6, the combination of Sharma and Ricci teaches the information handling system of claim 1; Sharma further disclose further comprising: the symmetric key-wrapped secure pairing key data package having the pairing key data including an OOB temporary key, wherein the OOB temporary key is generated by execution of a key generating algorithm at the wireless peripheral device broadcasts the symmetrical key-wrapped secure pairing key data package (Sharma Paragraph [0028]; discloses that a temporary key is part of the decrypted data package, which is broadcast to the other device. Paragraph [0063]; discloses that the data includes the device identification or pairing ID).
Kokku, which like the combination discusses the generation of keys, teaches it is known generate the key after the wireless peripheral device has been turned on and before the wireless peripheral device broadcasts data (Kokku paragraph [0026]; teaches that it is known for the device to generate the key after the device is operating or turned on and before broadcasting. As shown in Kokku this is done to control the use of the keys).
The primary reference Sharma establishes receiving a symmetric key from the backend management server which can be operated by the OEM. Sharma receives the encrypted package from the wireless peripheral device as part of the pairing query. Sharma decrypts the package to obtain the pairing data as part of the Bluetooth pairing process, when the pairing data matches the data at the wireless peripheral device. The Ricci reference establishes it is known for a console in a vehicle which connects to mobile devices to include its own processor, memory and power management unit. However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose where the key is generated after the device is turned on but before it broadcasts data.
The Kokku reference establishes it is known to generate the key after the device is turned on but before it broadcasts data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the information handling system of Sharma and Ricci the ability to generate the key after the device is turned on but before it broadcasts data as taught by Kokku since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Kokku, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma and Ricci, the ability to generate the key after the device is turned on but before it broadcasts data as taught by Kokku, for the purposes of using control the distribution of the key.
As per claim 7, the combination of Sharma, Ricci and Kokku teaches the information handling system of claim 6; Sharma further discloses wherein the received symmetrical key-wrapped pairing key data package was key-wrapped via a hardware controller of the peripheral device executes computer readable program code of an out-of-band (OOB) temporary key encryption agent to encrypt the OOB temporary key and the PD ID with a copy of the symmetric key to create the symmetrical key-wrapped secure pairing key data package (Sharma paragraph [0028]; teaches using encrypting the temporary key and the payload to create the encrypted or key-wrapped package. Paragraph [0063]; discloses that the data includes the device identification or pairing ID).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0120500 A1) hereafter Sharma, in view of Ricci et al. (WO 2013/074897 A1) hereafter Ricci, further in view of Kubisiak et al. (US 20220315240 A1) hereafter Kubisiak.
As per claim 8, the combination of Sharma and Ricci teaches the information handling system of claim 1; the combination however fails to further discloses further comprising: the hardware processor executing computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to delete an OOB temporary key unwrapped derived from the symmetric key-wrapped secure pairing key data package after the backend-coupled information handling system has been BT paired with the wireless peripheral device.
Kubisiak, which like the combination talks about Bluetooth pairing between devices, teaches the hardware processor executing computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to delete an OOB temporary key unwrapped derived from the symmetric key-wrapped secure pairing key data package after the backend-coupled information handling system has been BT paired with the wireless peripheral device (Kubisiak paragraph [0018]; teaches that it is known to delete the key after pairing to prevent the key from being compromised in the future).
The primary reference Sharma establishes receiving a symmetric key from the backend management server which can be operated by the OEM. Sharma receives the encrypted package from the wireless peripheral device as part of the pairing query. Sharma decrypts the package to obtain the pairing data as part of the Bluetooth pairing process, when the pairing data matches the data at the wireless peripheral device. The Ricci reference establishes it is known for a console in a vehicle which connects to mobile devices to include its own processor, memory and power management unit. However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose where the key is deleted after the devices have been paired.
The Kubisiak reference establishes it is known to delete the key after the devices have been paired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the information handling system of Sharma and Ricci the ability to delete the key after the devices have been paired as taught by Kubisiak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Kubisiak, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma and Ricci, the ability to delete the key after the devices have been paired as taught by Kubisiak, for the purposes of preventing the key being compromised.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0120500 A1) hereafter Sharma, in view of Ricci et al. (WO 2013/074897 A1) hereafter Ricci, further in view of Ochikubo et al. (US 2012/0257753 A1) hereafter Ochikubo.
As per claim 9, Sharma discloses an information handling system comprising:
the console executing computer readable program code of an automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to receive, via a wireless interface adapter, a symmetric key from an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) (Sharma, paragraph [0032]; discloses that the vehicle includes a console which has a Human Machine Interface. As shown in paragraph [0035] the Human Machine Interface or head unit has an application in the vehicle which pairs with the mobile device. This application acts as the executable computer readable program code of an automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent. Paragraph [0090]; discloses that the app or application can use wired or wireless communications to communicate with the server. Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; discloses that backend server sends the key to both the vehicle and the mobile device. This is a symmetric key which is used to encrypt the payload data and decrypt the data during the pairing process. Paragraph [0035]; discloses that the backend system can be maintained by an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or a third party);
the console executing computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system to, via the wireless interface adapter, receive a symmetric key-wrapped secure pairing key data package from a wireless peripheral device (Sharma Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; discloses that backend server sends the key to both the vehicle and the mobile device. This is a symmetric key which is used to encrypt the payload data and decrypt the data during the pairing process. As part of the pairing process the vehicle receives the pairing data package which is encrypted and uses the symmetric key to decrypt the data. Paragraphs [0061]-[0064]; discloses that as part of the pairing process the payload data is encrypted and provided to the vehicle for decryption and use. In this case it includes device information); and
the console to, with the symmetric key, unwrap the symmetric key-wrapped secure pairing key data package to obtain pairing key data used to automatically verify and Bluetooth ®(BT) pair the wireless peripheral device with the information handling system (Sharma Paragraphs [0061]-[0066]; discloses that as part of the pairing process the payload data is encrypted and provided to the vehicle for decryption and use. In this case it includes device information. The information is matched to the peripheral device data to determine if it authenticated and the pairing is allowed. Paragraph [0052]; discloses that the pairing is part of the Bluetooth pairing process).
While Sharma discloses a vehicle including a console, it is not explicit that the console includes a hardware processor; a memory device and a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and memory device. Additionally Sharma fails to establish that the manufacturer was the wireless peripheral device manufacturer.
Ricci, which like Sharma talks about a vehicle console, teaches it is known for the console to include a hardware processor; a memory device and a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and memory device (Ricci paragraph [0027]; teaches it is known for a vehicle console similar to what is shown in Sharma to include its own processor, memory and power source. Figure 3, Paragraph [0100]; teaches that the power source includes a power control module or power management unit which includes a power source for the console. Paragraph [0129]; teaches that like Sharma the console includes wireless communications and connects to a mobile device or smart phone. Paragraph [0166]; teaches that the vehicle connects to the device using Bluetooth which is the same as Sharma. Since Sharma already discloses including a console which communicates with wireless devices using Bluetooth, it would have been obvious for that console to include its own processor, memory and power control so it can carry out the functions shown Ricci).
The primary reference Sharma establishes receiving a symmetric key from the backend management server which can be operated by the OEM. Sharma receives the encrypted package from the wireless peripheral device as part of the pairing query. Sharma decrypts the package to obtain the pairing data as part of the Bluetooth pairing process, when the pairing data matches the data at the wireless peripheral device. While Sharma discloses a vehicle including a console, it is not explicit that the console includes a hardware processor; a memory device and a power management unit (PMU) to provide power to the hardware processor and memory device.
The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that the primary reference Sharma is not explicit that the console includes a processor, memory and power management unit.
The Ricci reference establishes it is known for a console in a vehicle which connects to mobile devices to include its own processor, memory and power management unit. Ricci establishes that this type of console and hardware was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself that is in the substitution of the console shown in the Sharma reference with the console including a processor, memory and power management unit taught in Ricci.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Therefore, from this teaching of Ricci, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma, with the console including a processor, memory and power management unit taught in Ricci, for the purposes of using known hardware to implement the device shown in Sharma. Since Sharma already discloses including a console which communicates with wireless devices using Bluetooth, it would have been obvious for that console to include its own processor, memory and power control so it can carry out the functions shown Ricci.
The combination fails to establish that the manufacturer was the wireless peripheral device manufacturer.
Ochikubo, which like the combination talks about encrypting communications, teaches that it is known for the manufacturer to be the wireless peripheral device manufacturer which provides the key (Ochikubo paragraph [0045]; teaches it is known for the manufacturer of the wireless device to provide the key for encrypting and decrypting. Since the combination already establishes that the backend which provides the key could be the manufacturer or a third party it would have been obvious that the manufacturer of the wireless device can provide the key for encrypting and decrypting the data as shown in Ochikubo).
The primary reference Sharma establishes receiving a symmetric key from the backend management server which can be operated by the OEM. Sharma receives the encrypted package from the wireless peripheral device as part of the pairing query. Sharma decrypts the package to obtain the pairing data as part of the Bluetooth pairing process, when the pairing data matches the data at the wireless peripheral device. The Ricci reference establishes it is known for a console in a vehicle which connects to mobile devices to include its own processor, memory and power management unit.
The sole difference between the combination and the claimed subject matter is that the combination is not explicit that the manufacturer to be the wireless peripheral device manufacturer.
The Ochikubo reference establishes it is known for the manufacturer to be the wireless peripheral device manufacturer. Ochikubo establishes that this type of manufacturer was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself that is in the substitution of the manufacturer providing the key shown in the Sharma and Ricci with the manufacturer to be the wireless peripheral device manufacturer taught in Ochikubo.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Therefore, from this teaching of Ochikubo, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma and Ricci, with the manufacturer to be the wireless peripheral device manufacturer taught in Ochikubo, for the purposes of allowing the wireless device manufacturer providing the keys to encrypt and decrypt the data.
As per claim 12, the combination of Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo teaches the information handling system of claim 9; Sharma further discloses further comprising: the hardware processor executing computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to determine that a PD ID transmitted from the wireless peripheral device matches the PD ID derived from the symmetrical key-wrapped pairing key data package to initiate automatic BT pairing with the wireless peripheral device (Sharma Paragraphs [0061]-[0066]; discloses that as part of the pairing process the payload data is encrypted and provided to the vehicle for decryption and use. In this case it includes device information. The information is matched to the peripheral device data to determine if it authenticated and the pairing is allowed. Paragraph [0052]; discloses that the pairing is part of the Bluetooth pairing process).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0120500 A1) hereafter Sharma, in view of Ricci et al. (WO 2013/074897 A1) hereafter Ricci, further in view of Ochikubo et al. (US 2012/0257753 A1) hereafter Ochikubo, further in view of Hameed et al. (US 2006/0068760 A1) hereafter Hameed.
As per claim 10, the combination of Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo teaches the information handling system of claim 9; Sharma further discloses further comprising: the hardware processor of the information handling system to execute the computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to unwrap the symmetrical key wrapped pairing key data package using the copy of the symmetric key to obtain the pairing key data that includes an out-of-band (OOB) temporary key and peripheral device identification (PD ID) (Sharma Paragraph [0028]; discloses that a temporary key is part of the decrypted data package. Paragraph [0063]; discloses that the data includes the device identification or pairing ID)
The combination however fails to explicitly disclose that the Bluetooth pairing is for access by an operating system (OS) BT stack for automatic verification and pairing with the wireless peripheral device.
Hameed, which like the combination talks about pairing wireless devices, teaches it is known to pair for access by an operating system (OS) BT stack for automatic verification and pairing with the wireless peripheral device (Hameed paragraph [0044]; teaches it is known to access an Operating system Bluetooth Stack as part of the pairing process for a wireless device).
The primary reference Sharma establishes receiving a symmetric key from the backend management server which can be operated by the OEM. Sharma receives the encrypted package from the wireless peripheral device as part of the pairing query. Sharma decrypts the package to obtain the pairing data as part of the Bluetooth pairing process, when the pairing data matches the data at the wireless peripheral device. The Ricci reference establishes it is known for a console in a vehicle which connects to mobile devices to include its own processor, memory and power management unit. The Ochikubo reference establishes it is known for the manufacturer to be the wireless peripheral device manufacturer.
The sole difference between the combination and the claimed subject matter is that the combination is not explicit that the pairing process includes access to the operating system (OS) BT stack.
The Hameed reference establishes that the pairing process includes access to the operating system (OS) BT stack. Hameed establishes the use of the operating system (OS) BT stack was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself that is in the substitution of the Bluetooth pairing shown in the Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo with the use of the operating system (OS) BT stack taught in Hameed.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Therefore, from this teaching of Hameed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo, with the use of the operating system (OS) BT stack taught in Hameed, for the purposes of pairing devices using Bluetooth.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0120500 A1) hereafter Sharma, in view of Ricci et al. (WO 2013/074897 A1) hereafter Ricci, further in view of Ochikubo et al. (US 2012/0257753 A1) hereafter Ochikubo, further in view of Hameed et al. (US 2006/0068760 A1) hereafter Hameed, Bukshpun et al. (US 2010/0211787 A1) hereafter Bukshpun.
As per claim 11, the combination of Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo teaches the information handling system of claim 9; Sharma further discloses further comprising: the hardware processor of the information handling system to execute the computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to unwrap the symmetrical key-wrapped pairing key data package using the copy of the symmetric key to obtain the pairing key data that includes seed and a PD ID (Sharma Paragraph [0028]; discloses that a temporary key is part of the decrypted data package. Sharma establishes that the data includes seed data. Paragraph [0063]; discloses that the data includes the device identification or pairing ID as well as other data), where the seed and index data is used in a hash loop executed by a hardware processor of the information handling system to generate an OOB temporary key (Sharma Paragraph [0028]; discloses that a temporary key is part of the decrypted data package. This is used to pair with the wireless device as shown in paragraph [0060] which establishes hashing algorithms to generate the key and as part of the verification process).
for access by an operating system (OS) Bluetooth ®(BT) stack for automatic verification and pairing with the wireless peripheral device ().
The combination however fails to explicitly disclose that the Bluetooth pairing is for access by an operating system (OS) Bluetooth ®(BT) stack for automatic verification and pairing with the wireless peripheral device. The combination fails to explicitly disclose that the key data includes index.
Hameed, which like the combination talks about pairing wireless devices, teaches it is known to pair for access by an operating system (OS) Bluetooth ®(BT) stack for automatic verification and pairing with the wireless peripheral device (Hameed paragraph [0044]; teaches it is known to access an Operating system Bluetooth Stack as part of the pairing process for a wireless device).
The primary reference Sharma establishes receiving a symmetric key from the backend management server which can be operated by the OEM. Sharma receives the encrypted package from the wireless peripheral device as part of the pairing query. Sharma decrypts the package to obtain the pairing data as part of the Bluetooth pairing process, when the pairing data matches the data at the wireless peripheral device. The Ricci reference establishes it is known for a console in a vehicle which connects to mobile devices to include its own processor, memory and power management unit. The Ochikubo reference establishes it is known for the manufacturer to be the wireless peripheral device manufacturer.
The sole difference between the combination and the claimed subject matter is that the combination is not explicit that the pairing process includes access to the operating system (OS) BT stack.
The Hameed reference establishes that the pairing process includes access to the operating system (OS) BT stack. Hameed establishes the use of the operating system (OS) BT stack was known in the prior art at the time of the invention.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself that is in the substitution of the Bluetooth pairing shown in the Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo with the use of the operating system (OS) BT stack taught in Hameed.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Therefore, from this teaching of Hameed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo, with the use of the operating system (OS) BT stack taught in Hameed, for the purposes of pairing devices using bluetooth.
The combination fails to explicitly disclose that the key data includes index.
Bukshpun, which like the combination talks about key generation, teaches it is known to include seed, index and identification data in the key generation (Bukshpun paragraph [0066]; teaches it is known to include seed, index and identification data and that in doing so this allows the system to be reliable and secure node validation at the device level. Since the combination already establishes generating a temporary keys using seed data and identification data, it would have been obvious to include index data to reliably validate at the device level as shown in Bukshpun).
Therefore, from this teaching of Bukshpun, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma, Ricci, Ochikubo and Hameed, with including seed, index and identification data in the key generation as taught in Bukshpun, for the purposes of reliably validating at the device level as shown in Bukshpun.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0120500 A1) hereafter Sharma, in view of Ricci et al. (WO 2013/074897 A1) hereafter Ricci, further in view of Ochikubo et al. (US 2012/0257753 A1) hereafter Ochikubo, further in view of Kokku et al. (US 2009/0310783 A1) hereafter Kokku.
As per claim 14, the combination of Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo teaches the information handling system of claim 9; Sharma further discloses further comprising: the wireless interface adapter receiving the symmetric key-wrapped secure pairing key data package including an OOB temporary key, wherein the OOB temporary key is generated by the wireless peripheral device and the wireless peripheral device broadcasts the symmetrical key-wrapped pairing key data package (Sharma Paragraph [0028]; discloses that a temporary key is part of the decrypted data package, which is broadcast to the other device. Paragraph [0063]; discloses that the data includes the device identification or pairing ID).
The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the OOB temporary key is generated by the wireless peripheral device after the wireless peripheral device has been turned on and before the wireless peripheral device broadcasts the symmetrical key-wrapped pairing key data package.
Kokku, which like the combination discusses the generation of keys, teaches it is known generate the key after the wireless peripheral device has been turned on and before the wireless peripheral device broadcasts data (Kokku paragraph [0026]; teaches that it is known for the device to generate the key after the device is operating or turned on and before broadcasting. As shown in Kokku this is done to control the use of the keys).
The primary reference Sharma establishes receiving a symmetric key from the backend management server which can be operated by the OEM. Sharma receives the encrypted package from the wireless peripheral device as part of the pairing query. Sharma decrypts the package to obtain the pairing data as part of the Bluetooth pairing process, when the pairing data matches the data at the wireless peripheral device. The Ricci reference establishes it is known for a console in a vehicle which connects to mobile devices to include its own processor, memory and power management unit. However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose where the key is generated after the device is turned on but before it broadcasts data.
The Kokku reference establishes it is known to generate the key after the device is turned on but before it broadcasts data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the information handling system of Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo the ability to generate the key after the device is turned on but before it broadcasts data as taught by Kokku since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, from this teaching of Kokku, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information handling system provided by Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo, the ability to generate the key after the device is turned on but before it broadcasts data as taught by Kokku, for the purposes of using control the distribution of the key.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0120500 A1) hereafter Sharma, in view of Ricci et al. (WO 2013/074897 A1) hereafter Ricci, further in view of Ochikubo et al. (US 2012/0257753 A1) hereafter Ochikubo, further in view of Kubisiak et al. (US 20220315240 A1) hereafter Kubisiak.
As per claim 15, the combination of Sharma, Ricci and Ochikubo teaches the information handling system of claim 9; the combination fails to further discloses further comprising: the hardware processor executing computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to delete OOB temporary key derived from the symmetric key-wrapped secure pairing key data package after the information handling system has been BT paired with the wireless peripheral device.
Kubisiak, which like the combination talks about Bluetooth pairing between devices, teaches the hardware processor executing computer readable program code of the automatic peripheral device pairing management system pairing agent to delete OOB temporary key derived from the symmetric key-wrapped secure pairing key data package after the information handling system has been BT paired with the wireless peripheral