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 .
Drawings
Corrected drawing sheets have been received. The objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Specification
The Abstract of the disclosure has been amended. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 9, 10, and 11 have been amended to recite “the unique non-configurable code” as it is referred to in claim 1. This makes clear that “the unique non-configurable code” of claims 5, 9, 10, and 11 derive their antecedent basis from “a unique non-configurable code”, which appears first in claim 1, line 3. The relevant objections to claims 5, 9, 10, and 11 are withdrawn.
Examiner maintains the following claim objections, and emphasizes that it is important to maintain consistent nomenclature throughout the claims so there is no confusion what the limitations of the claims are referring to.
Claim 1 remains objected to because “the unique non-configurable authentication code” in line 6 should read “the unique non-configurable code” (i.e., the term “authentication” should be removed) so that it is clear that this limitation derives its antecedent basis from “a unique non-configurable code”, which appears first in claim 1, line 3, and to differentiate the limitation from the “authentication code” limitation added in the amendment.
Claim 1 remains objected to because “said interface” in line 5 should read “said interface component” so that it is clear that this limitation derives its antecedent basis from “an interface component”, which appears first in claim 1, line 5.
Claims 2-11 remain objected to because, in the preamble of each claim, “the system” should read “the electronic system”. Additionally, in claims 2 and 3, “wherein the system” should read “wherein the electronic system”.
Claim 8 is objected to because “setting coding and decoding keys” in lines 1-2 should read “setting the coding key and setting a decoding key” in order to maintain proper antecedent basis. The “coding key” was introduced in claim 5, line 3; however, claim 8 is the first instantiation of “a decoding key”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Notes
Examiner makes note of MPEP § 2111.04(II) Contingent Limitations: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. Claim 12 contains the following contingent limitation: “…if the non-immutable code matches a code stored in the target component, activating the target component”. This limitation is not required because the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition “the non-immutable code matches a code stored in the target component” being met, i.e., the non-immutable code may not match the code stored in the target component. Thus, for examination purposes, this limitation is given no patentable weight.
***
Response to Arguments—Claim Interpretation and Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The limitations “input unit configured to receive,” “interface [component] configured to enable,” and “component configured to recognize” were all deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and thus were analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the previous office action. In the remarks filed 2026-01-29 (“Remarks”), applicant argued that “in this case, an ‘input unit configured to receive,’ ‘interface [component] configured to enable,’ and ‘component configured to recognize’ are all sufficiently structural elements in the computer/software context that they can be understood in light of the function(s) recited in the respective claims, without recourse to ‘means plus function’ analysis” (see Remarks, p. 6). Applicant goes on to state “specifically with respect to claim 1, substantially the same result is achieved using the Examiner’s ‘means plus function’ analysis, identifying the corresponding structure in the specification and equivalents, as would be reached without invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)” (see Remarks, p.6). Examiner reminds applicant that it is not the examiner that “invokes” the means-plus-function analysis; rather, it is the claim language itself. See MPEP § 2181.
Regarding the limitation “input unit configured to receive a command…” of claim 1: “input unit” is a placeholder for “means or step for”; it is modified by function language “configured to receive a command…”; and the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function of “receive a command…”. Thus, the result of this three-prong analysis dictates that the limitation “input unit configured to receive a command…” is to be interpreted according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See MPEP § 2181.
Regarding the limitation “component configured to recognize whether a command was issued by the interface component” of claim 4: “component” is a placeholder for “means or step for”; it is modified by function language “configured to recognize…”; and the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function of “recognize…”. Thus, the result of this three-prong analysis dictates that the limitation “component configured to recognize…” is to be interpreted according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See MPEP § 2181. Applicant argues that “structural support for ‘component configured to recognize that a command was issued’ is the same structural support required for component that can receive and send, a command, i.e., basic computer/software functionality” (see Remarks, p. 6; emphasis added). In doing so, applicant acknowledges that the “component configured to recognize…” may be a software element (see also Remarks, p. 8: “indeed, a computer or software component configured to send and receive commands implies that it may be inherently configured to recognize whether a command was issued”, emphasis added) – i.e., the recitation “component configured to recognize whether a command was issued” does not inherently invoke structure, as it may just as well be a block of code or software per se, which are non-structural. Furthermore, MPEP § 2181 states: “To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming”. Thus, applicant’s own assertion that “structural support for ‘component configured to recognize that a command was issued’ is the same structural support required for component that can receive and send, a command, i.e. basic computer/software functionality” (see Remarks, p. 6, emphasis added) admits that this limitation amounts to pure functional claiming.
Regarding the limitation “interface [component] configured to enable a transfer of the unique non-configurable code from a memory of the input unit to a memory address accessible to the target component.…” of claim 1: “interface [component]” is a placeholder for “means or step for”; it is modified by function language “configured to enable a transfer…”; and the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function of “enable a transfer…”. Thus, the result of this three-prong analysis dictates that the limitation “interface [component] configured to enable a transfer…” be interpreted according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See MPEP § 2181. Further, the interface component performs the action of enabling a transfer of data from one memory address to another; this does not inherently invoke structure, as it may just as well be a block of code or software per se, as pointed out by applicant (see Remarks, p. 6: “a person or [sic] ordinary skill in the art recognizes that an interface refers to a computer or software element”; emphasis added) which are non-structural. Furthermore, MPEP § 2181 states: “To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming”. Thus, applicant’s own assertion that “an ‘interface’ is a computer or software element that allows a data transfer from memory of one unit to the memory address of another unit—which is almost a practical definition of ‘interface’ in certain contexts” (see Remarks, pp. 6-7, emphasis added) admits that this limitation amounts to pure functional claiming.
For the above reasons, examiner finds that the interpretation of the limitations “input unit configured to receive…”, “interface [component] configured to enable…” of claim 1 and “component configured to recognize…” of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is proper, and this analysis is maintained for the purpose of examination. See section Claim Interpretation below.
For the above reasons, examiner finds applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 1 to be unpersuasive. Applicant states that the “interface [component]” may be a computer or software element (see Remarks, pp. 6-7), and provides no indication of where in the specification can be found corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the recited function of “[enabling] a transfer of the unique non-configurable code from a memory of the input unit to a memory address accessible to the target component…”. Thus, claim 1 fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and the rejection is maintained. Additionally, applicant did not address the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), other than to assert incorrectly that claim 1 should not be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is also maintained. See section Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 below.
For the above reasons, examiner finds applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claim 4 to be unpersuasive, and applicant provides no indication of where in the specification can be found corresponding structure, material, or acts for the “component” of claim 4 to perform the recited function of “recognize whether a command was issued”. Thus, claim 4 fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and the rejection is maintained. Additionally, applicant did not address the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), other than to assert incorrectly that claim 1 should not be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is also maintained. See section Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 below.
Claim 4 has been amended to recite “the interface component” rather than “one of the electronic system’s components”. Thus, this particular rejection of claim 4 under U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claims 5 and 6 have been amended to recite “the coding key”. Thus, the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claim 7 has been amended to recite “the coding circuit”. Thus, the rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claim 8 has been amended to recite “setting coding and decoding keys”. Claim 5, upon which claim 8 depends, introduces “a coding key”. Therefore, “setting coding and decoding keys” should read “setting the coding key and setting a decoding key” in order to maintain proper antecedent basis. The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn. However, please see the section Claim Objections above. Appropriate correction is required for claim 8.
Claim 9 has been amended to recite “the target component”. Thus, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claim 12 remains rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Applicant states that “the two components [of claim 12] may be any two components included in the system as required in claim 12” (see Remarks, p. 7). However, the claim language as written remains indefinite and still requires correction to positively assert the components in which the non-immutable code is/may be stored, e.g., “storing a non-immutable code in any two of: a sensing component, an electronic component, or a target component”.
Please see the sections Claim Interpretation and Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 below. Appropriate corrections are required.
***
Response to Arguments—35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments filed 2026-01-29 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered and in light of the amendments to the independent claims, are persuasive. The previous rejections to claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn.
***
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in this Office action. Please refer to section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
***
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1: “the input unit is configured to receive” and “said interface [component] is configured to enable”.
In claim 4: “at least one component configured to recognize”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such corresponding structure is as follows:
“the input unit is configured to receive” of claim 1 is being interpreted to cover “a communication unit, for example an internet gateway, or a touchpad, a keyboard, a microphone and the like…a steering wheel, gas or brake pedal, door lock operating switch and so on” (Specification, ¶0041-42), and equivalents thereof.
However, regarding the limitations “said interface [component] is configured to enable” of claim 1 and “at least one component configured to recognize” of claim 4, the specification fails to provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the recited function(s). Thus, claims 1 and 4 fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). See MPEP § 2181 and section Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Please also refer to the section Response to Arguments—Claim Interpretation and Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
***
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitation “said interface [component] is configured to enable” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see section Claim Interpretation above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification mentions the “interface” in ¶0008 and ¶0041, but these sections merely repeat the claim language and fail to disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Please also refer to the section Response to Arguments—Claim Interpretation and Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1 and are therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification mentions the “interface” in ¶0008 and ¶0041, but these sections merely repeat the claim language and fail to disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness (see MPEP § 2181). Please also refer to the section Response to Arguments—Claim Interpretation and Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1 and are therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitation “at least one component configured to recognize” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see section Claim Interpretation above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification mentions the “component configured to recognize” in ¶0009, but merely repeats the claim language and fails to disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Please also refer to the section Response to Arguments—Claim Interpretation and Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification mentions the “component configured to recognize” in ¶0009, but merely repeats the claim language and fails to disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness (see MPEP § 2181). Please also refer to the section Response to Arguments—Claim Interpretation and Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 recites the limitation "two components of the system" in line 3. Claim 12 also recites “an electric component” in line 1 and “a sensing component” in line 4. It is unclear which component applicant is referring to. For examination purposes examiner has interpreted “two components of the system” to be any two components of the electronic system. Please also refer to the section Response to Arguments—Claim Interpretation and Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
References Cited
Girdhar, Dhiraj et al. (2019). Adaptive risk-based password syncronization (US 2019/0306153 A1). Filed 2018-03-27.
Gulati, Rajeev (2018). Counterfeit prevention (US 2018/0041341 A1). Filed 2017-08-03.
Herman, Ryan (2023). System and method for an applique with deployable handle (US 2023/0258030 A1). Filed 2023-02-16.
Jiang, Tao et al. (2016). Utilization of multiple keypads for password inputs (US 9,401,914 B1). Filed 2015-06-05.
Pappachan, Pradeep M. et al. (2021). Technologies for secure hardware and software attestation for trusted i/o (US 11,157,623 B2). Filed 2019-02-20.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Buttolo, P. et al. (2016). Multi-touch keyless entry pad (US 2016/0259439 A1). Filed 2015-03-02.
Cardillo, Michael et al. (2022). Universal remote device activation system (US 2022/0369267 A1). Filed 2022-05-19.
Conflitti, Paul A. et al. (2022). Modernized global navigation satellite system (gnss) receivers and commercially viable consumer grade gnss receivers (US 2022/0137236 A1). Filed 2020-10-12.
Cruzado et al. (2015). Protecting packages from tampering (US 9,007,182 B2). Filed 2012-02-15.
Drake, Christopher Nathan Tyrwhitt (2017). Mutual authentication security system with detection and mitigation of active man-in-the-middle browser attacks, phishing, and malware and other security improvements. (US 2017/0346851 A1). Filed 2016-05-30.
Hardt, Dick Clarence et al. (2020). Multi-factor location-based authentication (US 10,735,411 B1). Filed 2018-01-31.
Huber, Braden R. et al. (2014). Technologies and methods for security access (US 2014/0375422 A1). Filed 2014-06-20.
Krishnamoorthy, Shyam et al. (2021). Dynamic establishment of trust between locally connected devices (US 10,972,912 B1). Filed 2018-09-28.
Leblang, Jonathan Alan et al. (2020). Multi-factor location-based and voice-based user location authentication (US 10,715,528 B1). Filed 2018-01-31.
Mishra, P. et al. (2015). Enhanced vehicle key fob (US 2015/0116079 A1). Filed 2013-10-24.
Nix, John A. (2015). Secure pki communications for machine-to-machine modules, including key derivation by modules and authenticating public keys (US 2015/0095648 A1). Filed 2013-09-27.
Oberheide, J. (2018). System and methods for opportunistic croyptographic key management on an electronic device (US 9,998,282 B2). Filed 2017-08-29.
Pandiarajan, V. et al. (2015). Dynamic generation of quick response (qr) codes for secure communication from/to a mobile device (US 2015/0178721 A1). Filed 2013-12-20.
Reis, Steven H. et al. (2024). Delegating authentication across applications (US 12,147,989 B1). Filed 2021-04-29.
Soffer, Aviv (2023). Secured smartphone communication system (US 2023/0131220 A1). Filed 2021-04-08.
Stadler, Marco et al. (2023). Systems and methods for scalable cockpit controller with generic and reconfigurable car-interface (US 2023/0166593 A1). Filed 2022-11-02.
Totah, John et al. (2021). Interface authenticator (US 11,050,570 B1). Filed 2018-11-21.
Weis, S. et al. (2012). Image-based key exchange (US 2012/0084846 A1). Filed 2011-09-30.
Werner, Klaus et al. (2021). Tracking and verification of physical assets (US 2021/0091960 A1). Filed 2019-09-24.
Wurster, Charles S. et al. (2014). Preserving security by synchronizing a nonce or counter between systems (US 2014/0133656 A1). Filed 2013-02-21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights