DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
3. This Office action is considered fully responsive to the amendments filed 03/12/2026.
Claims 1-5 are pending in the application, claims 1, 3, and 4 have been amended, and claims 2and 5 have been previously presented.
The claim rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The claim objection is maintained because they are not fully addressed.
Claim Objection
4. Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3, line 15, using “those in points a), b), c), ” is not appropriate and should be changed.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that:
The cited art fails to disclose or suggest at least "determining at least one of a distance of the respective communication partner to the controller or application and a position of the respective communication subscriber in relation to the controller or application based on whether the propagation time of the signal is more than double the PHY latency" as recited in claim 1. (Pages 5-6, Remarks).
In response to A), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Lafollette teaches determining whether propagation time of the signal is more than double a Physical Layer (PHY) latency (Page 8, lines 1-3 define the PHY delay, Fig. 1, page 12, lines 11-16 describes that the round trip delay between two nodes computed according to an equation which considered the value of double PHY delay, Figs. 4-5, page 14, lines 4-19, page 15, lines 4-21, confirms that the double of the PHY delay is considered in the calculation, these measurements are combined to eliminate the propagation time from the measuring node to node B and the excess PHY delay for node B (measured twice in the propagation times for nodes C and D. Moreover, Page 10, lines 1-9, states “The term for PHY jitter is the sum of individual PHY jitter for each of the repeating PHYs on the path between the measuring node and the pinged node. This can be obtained by a remote read of the PHY registers. The resultant round-trip delay is expressed in units of microseconds. In addition to determining maximum round trip delays for each communication path between leaf nodes in the network, the response time need for each leaf mode is determined at step 306. This time is referred to as a leaf node latency delay or leaf PHY delay. Each leaf PHY delay can be determined from each leaf node's own PHY register.” This paragraph illustrates how to determine value of the PHY latency); and determining at least one of a distance of the respective communication partner to the controller or application and a position of the respective communication subscriber in relation to the controller or application based on whether the propagation time of the signal is more than double the PHY latency (Page 9, lines 7-9 describes how the propagation time (measured by the round trip delay) can be include both propagation delay and node PHY delay/latency. These delays are influenced by the physical cable lengths and the node latencies as described in Page 2 lines 27-28 and Page 3 lines 1-2 “Table E-6 lists a maximum round trip propagation delay for a given number of hops based on the assumption that the length of the transmission medium (e.g. , co- axial cable) between each node is 4.5 meters“ and Page 7 Para. 4. Then by measuring the round trip delay and subtracting the known latencies of the nodes and other processing delays, the remaining value will be the cable propagation delay , which can be translated /converted to a physical distance between the two nodes as recited in claim 6 and Page 10 Para. 1. That means to calculate the distance, first measure the round trip delay between the two devices (nodes) using PHY pinging (claim4), then subtract the node latencies and divide the cable propagation delay by the propagation speed to get the physical distance between the nodes. Page 2, Para. 3 states “For example, "self-ID" packets sent by each node can be used to reconstruct the topology of a bus network, or the bus manager can simply assume a maximum number of hops (16) for a given network” and claims 3 and 6 provide the capability of reconstruct the network topology (which nodes are directly connected and the relative distances between them). That implies the determining the position and the distance of the respective communication subscriber in relation to the controller or application based on whether the propagation time of the signal is more than double the PHY latency). Therefore, the office action still teach the limitations as currently claimed.
Lafollette, does not disclose or suggest that the measurements are used in determining a distance between two devices as recited in claim 1. (Page 6, Remarks).
In response to B), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Lafollette teaches in Page 9, lines 7-9 describes how the propagation time (measured by the round trip delay) can be include both propagation delay and node PHY delay/latency. These delays are influenced by the physical cable lengths and the node latencies as described in Page 2 lines 27-28 and Page 3 lines 1-2 “Table E-6 lists a maximum round trip propagation delay for a given number of hops based on the assumption that the length of the transmission medium (e.g. , co- axial cable) between each node is 4.5 meters“ and Page 7 Para. 4. Then by measuring the round trip delay and subtracting the known latencies of the nodes and other processing delays, the remaining value will be the cable propagation delay , which can be translated /converted to a physical distance between the two nodes as recited in claim 6 and Page 10 Para. 1. That means to calculate the distance, first measure the round trip delay between the two devices (nodes) using PHY pinging (claim4), then subtract the node latencies and divide the cable propagation delay by the propagation speed to get the physical distance between the nodes. Page 2, Para. 3 states “For example, "self-ID" packets sent by each node can be used to reconstruct the topology of a bus network, or the bus manager can simply assume a maximum number of hops (16) for a given network” and claims 3 and 6 provide the capability of reconstruct the network topology (which nodes are directly connected and the relative distances between them). That implies the determining the position and the distance of the respective communication subscriber in relation to the controller or application based on whether the propagation time of the signal is more than double the PHY latency. Therefore, the office action still teach the limitations as currently claimed.
Lafollette, Cooper, and Knibbeler when applied individually and/or collectively fail to disclose or suggest every feature and/or the combination of features recited in Applicant's claims.
In response to C), the examiner respectfully disagrees, for at least the same reasons given in the response above. Please see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section below that details the rejection of each limitation/feature recited in Applicant's claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US-20150148989-A1) in view of Lafollette et al. (WO-9967760-A1), further in view of Knibbeler et al. (US-8276209-B2).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Cooper teaches A method for encrypting security-relevant data in a vehicle (Fig. 1, [0047], lines 4-9, [0049], lines 1-9, [0064], lines 7-11, the method uses digital key and encryption for secure communication between a mobile device (subscriber) and vehicle), comprising: identifying an address of a respective communication subscriber in an Ethernet network ([0003], lines 1-5, [0044], lines 1-7, states “the term "Internet of Things device" (or "IoT device") may refer to any object (e.g., an appliance, a sensor, etc.) that has an addressable interface (e.g., an Internet protocol (IP) address, a Bluetooth identifier (ID), a near-field communication (NFC) ID, etc.) and can transmit information to one or more other devices over a wired or wireless connection.” [0072], lines 22-25, the devices are identified by their IP (internet protocol) addresses, which are logical addresses used for routing and communication across networks, such as Ethernet network), sending, by a controller running an application, a signal to the respective communication subscriber over the Ethernet network ([0072] describes different types of wireless communication (sending /receiving) signals between the controller and the devices, including Ethernet, “wireless connection mediums such as Bluetooth, Bluetooth LE, wireless USB. Still further, each of the devices can be implemented to communicate with other devices using a direct, wireless peer-to-peer communication protocol, such as provided by Wi-Fi Direct. Other implementations may include wired network mediums, such as Ethernet or Automotive Ethernet.“); measuring a propagation time to the respective communication partner (Figs. 5 and 6, [0074] states “Proximity conditions can further enhance security, and can be enforced using, for example, round trip delay calculation techniques. “ This can be done using triangulation analysis as stated in claim 14, [0127], lines 2-5, [0144], lines 11-20, “The position of the mobile computing device 610 can then be determined by triangulating the relative distances. “propagation time is measured using triangulation approach (based on the time delay of the received signals) or signal strength analysis RSSI. E.g. the mobile computing device transmits an acoustic signal to multiple microphones on the vehicle, then the delay taken for the signal to travel and back to each microphone is used to calculate the device position,
Cooper fails to teach determining whether propagation time of the signal is more than double a Physical Layer (PHY) latency; and determining at least one of a distance of the respective communication partner to the controller or application and a position of the respective communication subscriber in relation to the controller or application based on whether the propagation time of the signal is more than double the PHY latency, wherein, when the distance from the respective communication partner to the controller or application is below a threshold value, the application is classified as trustworthy.
However, Lafollette teaches determining whether propagation time of the signal is more than double a Physical Layer (PHY) latency (Page 8, lines 1-3 define the PHY delay, Fig. 1, page 12, lines 11-16 describes that the round trip delay between two nodes computed according to an equation which considered the value of double PHY delay, Figs. 4-5, page 14, lines 4-19, page 15, lines 4-21, confirms that the double of the PHY delay is considered in the calculation, these measurements are combined to eliminate the propagation time from the measuring node to node B and the excess PHY delay for node B (measured twice in the propagation times for nodes C and D. Moreover, Page 10, lines 1-9, states “The term for PHY jitter is the sum of individual PHY jitter for each of the repeating PHYs on the path between the measuring node and the pinged node. This can be obtained by a remote read of the PHY registers. The resultant round-trip delay is expressed in units of microseconds. In addition to determining maximum round trip delays for each communication path between leaf nodes in the network, the response time need for each leaf mode is determined at step 306. This time is referred to as a leaf node latency delay or leaf PHY delay. Each leaf PHY delay can be determined from each leaf node's own PHY register.” This paragraph illustrates how to determine value of the PHY latency); and determining at least one of a distance of the respective communication partner to the controller or application and a position of the respective communication subscriber in relation to the controller or application based on whether the propagation time of the signal is more than double the PHY latency (Page 9, lines 7-9 describes how the propagation time (measured by the round trip delay) can be include both propagation delay and node PHY delay/latency. These delays are influenced by the physical cable lengths and the node latencies as described in Page 2 lines 27-28 and Page 3 lines 1-2 “Table E-6 lists a maximum round trip propagation delay for a given number of hops based on the assumption that the length of the transmission medium (e.g. , co- axial cable) between each node is 4.5 meters“ and Page 7 Para. 4. Then by measuring the round trip delay and subtracting the known latencies of the nodes and other processing delays, the remaining value will be the cable propagation delay , which can be translated /converted to a physical distance between the two nodes as recited in claim 6 and Page 10 Para. 1. That means to calculate the distance, first measure the round trip delay between the two devices (nodes) using PHY pinging (claim4), then subtract the node latencies and divide the cable propagation delay by the propagation speed to get the physical distance between the nodes. Page 2, Para. 3 states “For example, "self-ID" packets sent by each node can be used to reconstruct the topology of a bus network, or the bus manager can simply assume a maximum number of hops (16) for a given network” and claims 3 and 6 provide the capability of reconstruct the network topology (which nodes are directly connected and the relative distances between them). That implies the determining the position and the distance of the respective communication subscriber in relation to the controller or application based on whether the propagation time of the signal is more than double the PHY latency).
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 Cooper to include check is performed to determine whether the propagation time is longer than double the PHY latency, as taught by Lafollette, in combination with the system of Cooper, to ensure the two devices can communicate without conflicts which is essential for maintaining network efficiency and reliability, (Lafollette, page 4, lines 7-9 and page 7, lines 11-13).
Cooper and Lafollette do not explicitly teach wherein, when the distance from the respective communication partner to the controller or application is below a threshold value, the application is classified as trustworthy.
However, Knibbeler teaches wherein, when the distance from the respective communication partner to the controller or application is below a threshold value, the application is classified as trustworthy (Col. 5, lines 14-17 states “the distance can be compared to a predetermined threshold in order to decide to which extent the communication between the first and second device is allowed.” That implies using a predefined a threshold value for comparison, Fig. 3 shows how to distinguish between the device within the local network or outside the controller, as states “Experimental results (depicted in FIG. 3) show that a threshold 301 exists that distinguishes between the round-trip times for devices within a home network, and the round-trip times between devices that are not both within the same home network.” And “FIG. 3 shows that RTT measurements can be used to clearly distinguish between links within a local network and links from a local network node to a node outside the local network.” Col. 3, lines 30-36 states “only if a sum of the first determined distance and the second determined distance and a distance between the proximity check servers is below a predetermined threshold, the devices are considered close enough in order to allow them to communicate at a certain level) and lines 40-47 states “These thresholds determine the target area(s) around the proximity check server(s) within which the devices are allowed to communicate with each other. Preferably, for optimal protection, the proximity check server(s) is (are) located near the center of the geographically region (or region parts) within which devices are allowed to exchange content” that indicates the threshold can help to ensure the devices in a specific area/positions to allow the trustworthy communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cooper in view of Lafollette to incorporate the teachings of Knibbeler (in analogous art) by determining whether propagation time of the signal is more than double a Physical Layer (PHY) latency to ensure secure and reliable communication between the device and the proximity check server (Knibbeler, Col. 7, 55-58).
Regarding claim 2 (Previously Presented), Cooper, Lafollette and Knibbeler teach the method as claimed in claim 1.
Cooper fails to teach wherein, for verification purposes, safeguarding is affected by another protocol
However, Knibbeler further teaches wherein, for verification purposes, safeguarding is affected by another protocol (claim 8, Col. 3, lines 4-6, Col. 4, lines 7-11, another protocol can be used for verification purposes as stated “by integrating the round-trip time measurement with the authentication protocol, it is more difficult to spoof the proximity check server, and the first device can be sure that the PCS has authorization to perform a proximity measurement. The first device has authenticated access to the unique identifier of the PCS.” Specifically, the communication protocol includes a challenge response protocol such that only the first device or second device itself is able to provide the response to the challenge. the proximity check server operates as a proximity certificate server and generates a first proximity certificate for each distance measured. A Proximity Certificate and distance or round-trip time between a specific device and the PCS, and a cryptographic signature that can be used to determine that the message is authentic and has not been tampered with. Col. 12, lines 41-43, Col. 4, lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cooper in view of Lafollette to incorporate the teachings of Knibbeler (in analogous art) by for verification purposes, safeguarding is affected by means of another protocol to enhance safeguarding during the verification process to ensure secure and reliable communication between the device and the proximity check server (Knibbeler, Col. 7, 55-58).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Cooper, Lafollette and Knibbeler teach the method as claimed in claim 1.
Cooper further teaches wherein following measurement of the propagation time of a signal from the controller or application to the respective communication partner and following determination of at least one of the distance from the controller or application to the respective communication partner and the position of the respective communication partner in relation to the controller or application, checking a measurement of the propagation time that (Figs. 6B and 6C, Fig. 12, (Steps 1233 and 1235, using triangulation method), [0175], lines 9-13, use of propagation time measurements, e.g., acoustic signals, RF signals, to determine the distance or position of the mobile computing device relative to the vehicle. Fig. 4c, [0164], lines 1-4, [0149], lines 11-15, using RSSI values form multiple wireless transmitters to determine whether the mobile computing device is inside or outside the vehicle) such that: b) when the propagation time of the signal from the controller or application is shorter than the propagation time within the vehicle, the communication subscriber is located within the vehicle (Fig. 6A and [0138], lines 7-10 states “with reference to an example of FIG. 6A, the mobile computing device can be located within the vehicle's vicinity (e.g., within 10 cm), within the vehicle, or within a given location within the vehicle.” Claim 13 also confirms using the propagation times /RSS to identify the device location inside/outside the vehicle, as stats “analyzing a returned signal strength indication from one or more wireless transmitters provided with the vehicle in order to determine whether the mobile computing device is inside or outside of the vehicle.”, in addition to [0196] and Fig. 15), c) When the propagation time of the signal from the controller or application is shorter than the propagation time within the internal router, the communication subscriber is directly connected to the vehicle (Fig. 6C, claim 13, and [0146] states “In an example of FIG. 6C, a vehicle 630 is equipped with multiple wireless transmitters 644 that can communicate with a mobile computing device 610 located either inside or outside of the vehicle 630. These transmitters 644 can utilize wireless technology standards such as Bluetooth or Bluetooth LE.” Which implies that the device is directly connected to the vehicle when the propagation time is shorter than the propagation time within the internal router), d) When the propagation time of the signal from the controller or application is longer than the propagation time defined in points a), b) and c), the communication subscriber is located outside of the vehicle (Fig. 6B, [0119], [0143]-[0144] describe using propagation time to identify the position of the device in respect to the vehicle “the time elapsed between the transmission and reception of the RF broadcast is subtracted from the time elapsed between the ultrasound transmission and its reception at each of the microphones 642. By multiplying by the speed of sound, the distance of the mobile computing device 610 to each of the microphones 642 relative to the RF antenna 640 can be calculated. The position of the mobile computing device 610 can then be determined by triangulating the relative distances. “ That describes the propagation time of the signal from the controller or application to the device and claims 12-13 and [0148] describe how to analyze the characteristics of the resultant signals by the position of the device, longer propagation time translated to farther position from the vehicle (outside the vehicle)).
Cooper fails to teach a) when the propagation time of the signal from the controller or application is shorter than the propagation time within the ECU, the communication subscriber is located on the same printed circuit board.
However, Knibbeler teaches a) when the propagation time of the signal from the controller or application is shorter than the propagation time within the ECU, the communication subscriber is located on the same printed circuit board (Fig. 3, Col. 8, lines 29-36 states “Although the round-trip times measured for short distance connections are mainly due to the delay of the routers, it is nevertheless possible to use the round-trip time as a measure to distinguish between in-home and out-of-home connections. Experiments have shown that local network delays are approximately 0.1 ms per router step, whereas a WAN link to an external network introduces at least 10 ms delay. Even a local Wi-Fi link adds only approximately 3 ms delay.” According to the experiment, the propagation time is about 0.1 ms per one step, it is definitely, on the PCB board or inside the vehicle, which is well known that the signal propagation on the PCB is typically in the nanoseconds or picoseconds, where there is no PHY delay (no signal conversion A/D or D/A) and no additional delay due to routers, modems, hubs, switches, interfaces, etc., which reducing the propagation time to the minimum. Even with local WiFi link, the additional delay will be about 3ms. Col 1, lines 1-19, Col. 6 lines 19-21, Col2, lines 37-51 describe that Secure Authenticated Channels (SACs) are commonly used to protect digital content that is in transit from one device to another, e.g. in a home network and in the case of a single PCS that has produced both the first distance and second distance measurements, the rule could be that the sum of the first determined distance and second determined distance remains below a predetermined threshold. Therefore, the devices can be considered close enough in order to allow them for example to exchange digital content ( may on the same board)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cooper in view of Lafollette to incorporate the teachings of Knibbeler (in analogous art) by for verification purposes, safeguarding is affected by means of another protocol to enhance safeguarding during the verification process to ensure secure and reliable communication between the device and the proximity check server (Knibbeler, Col. 7, 55-58).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Cooper, Lafollette and Knibbeler and Lafollette teach the method as claimed in claim 1
Cooper does not explicitly teach wherein, when the propagation time from the controller is longer than double the Physical Layer PHY latency, the respective communication subscriber is located outside of an ECU, and wherein, when a propagation time from the controller is shorter than double the PHY latency, the respective communication subscriber is not directly connected to the ECU.
However, Lafollette teaches wherein, when the propagation time from the controller is longer than double the Physical Layer PHY latency, and wherein the respective communication subscriber is located outside of an ECU, when a propagation time from the controller is shorter than double the PHY latency the respective communication subscriber is not directly connected to the ECU (Figs. 4-5, page 14, lines 4-19, page 15, lines 4-21, the double of the PHY delay is considered in the calculation, these measurements are combined to eliminate the propagation time from the measuring node to node B and the excess PHY delay for node B (measured twice in the propagation times for nodes C and D. Page 8, lines 1-3 define the PHY delay, Fig. 1, page 12, lines 11-16 describes that the round trip delay between two nodes computed according to an equation which considered the double PHY delay values. Moreover, Page 10, lines 1-9, states “The term for PHY jitter is the sum of individual PHY jitter for each of the repeating PHYs on the path between the measuring node and the pinged node. This can be obtained by a remote read of the PHY registers. The resultant round-trip delay is expressed in units of microseconds. In addition to determining maximum round trip delays for each communication path between leaf nodes in the network, the response time need for each leaf mode is determined at step 306. This time is referred to as a leaf node latency delay or leaf PHY delay. Each leaf PHY delay can be determined from each leaf node's own PHY register.” This paragraph illustrates how to determine the PHY latency by establishing a remote access to the PHY registers which can be used to measure jitter values, then extract the jitter data from the PHY registers. As shown in the example on page 9, lines 9-12. By analyzing the PHY delay and the propagation delay, it can be inferred the relative positions of the node in the network (e.g., outside, inside, direct connect, or indirect connect with ECU, by using the PHY as a threshold, which is aligns with the technical understanding of this art).
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 Cooper in view of Knibbeler to include check is performed to determine whether the propagation time is longer than double the PHY latency, as taught by Lafollette, in combination with the system of Cooper in view of Knibbeler, to ensure the two devices can communicate without conflicts which is essential for maintaining network efficiency and reliability, (Lafollette, page 4, lines 7-9 and page 7, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 5 (Previously Presented), Cooper, Lafollette and Knibbeler teach The method as claimed in claim 1.
Cooper further teaches wherein, when the respective communication subscriber is determined to be located outside of the ECU (Claim 12 states “determining, on the mobile computing device, that the mobile computing device is outside to the vehicle by analyzing a characteristic of a wireless signal exchanged between the mobile computing device and the vehicle.” Which implies the device can be located outside of the vehicle), the method comprising: requesting a secure connection from the respective communication subscriber to another communication subscriber be established (Figs. 8-9, claim 12, [0048], [0160] states “in addition, an encrypted communication 914 conveying a command can be signaled from the mobile computing device 810 to the controller 820 in order to authenticate the devices for security reasons. “ [0164], lines 7-11, handshake exchange between the mobile computing device and the vehicle controller. The handshake exchange is part of the process to establish a secure connection when the mobile computing device is outside the vehicle), wherein a security mechanism for the secure connection is dependent on the determined distance from the controller or application to the respective communication partner (claim 12, [0071], lines 9-11, [0072], lines 29-31, [0074], lines 10-12, the security mechanism for setting up a secure connection is affected depending on the distance between the subscriber (mobile device) and the vehicle. The proximity conditions can further enhance security, and can be enforced using round trip delay calculation approach as an example. [0131] states “Wi-Fi signals from the mobile computing device 210 can be utilized in order to determine when the mobile computing device 210 is within a longer range (e.g., less than 10 m) from the vehicle, and Bluetooth can be used to determine when the mobile computing device 210 is within a second shorter range (e.g., less than 1 m). Still further, NFC can be used to determine the mobile computing device 210 is adjacent (e.g., less than 10 cm) to the vehicle. As another variation, the condition for pairing may require proximity though a wired or physical connection (e.g., USB), other examples in [0106], lines 15-18, [0061], lines 11-15, and [0074] lines 10-12. Allt these examples imply the security mechanism for the secure connection is dependent on the determined distance from the device and the controller or application.)
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Kamperman (US-20190238530-A1), Smith et al (US-20200084202-A1), Girard et al. (US-8344850-B2), Reisinger et al. (US-11343076-B2), Kleeberger et al. (US-11388156-B2) and Kasichainula et al. (US-20190045475-A1) teach methods involved security approaches for setting up secure connections in network system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANAA S AL SAMAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
/SANAA AL SAMAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights