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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 05/28/2026. In the instant amendment, claims 1, 3, 10, 17 and 19 are amended; claim 5 was cancelled; claims 1, 17 and 19 are independent claims. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 17 and 19 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264) in view of Le Saint et al (“Le Saint,” US 20190014094) and further in view of Wentink et al (“Wentink,” US 20130128808).
Regarding claim 1, Britt discloses a method of operating a client device, the method comprising:
receiving a radio signal comprising an encrypted data packet, (Brit, [0138], FIG 16B; FIG 18 discloses an encrypted data packet transmitted to an IoT device 101 with the device’s encryption engine receiving and decrypting the packet)
decrypting said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, (Brit [0138] describes decrypting the encrypted data packet at the IoT device)
Brit fails to explicitly disclose said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; decrypting said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, wherein each decrypted data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said decrypted data structure is addressed; establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Le Saint discloses said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; (Le Saint, [0187]-[0190], FIG 11 describes a multi-party encrypted message includes multiple encrypted message portions corresponding to recipient computers. The message body contains address information corresponding to those recipient computers)
wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, (Le Saint, [0189] describes identifying the destination associated with each message portion)
wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device, (Le Saint, [0188]-[0189] discloses the address information can come from decrypted message content)
decrypting said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, (Le Saint, [0188], FIG 11 discloses decrypting an encrypted message body and obtains the message body containing recipient related information)
wherein each decrypted data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said decrypted data structure is addressed; (Le Saint, [0188]-[0189], FIG 11, FIG 3 discloses after decrypting the encrypted message body, the proxy obtains address information corresponding to recipient computers and parses the body to identify an address for each encrypted message portion)
if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet, (Le Saint, [0188], describes the message body is encrypted, the proxy decrypts the encrypted message body, and that the resulting message body contains address information corresponding to recipient computers; [0189] the proxy parses the decrypted message body to identify an address for each encrypted message portion, and the address can be routing information, a next hop address or the recipient’s computer’s network address; [0190] describes the proxy routes each encrypted message portion using the corresponding address; also see FIG 11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Le Saint with the method/system of Britt to include said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; decrypting said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, wherein each decrypted data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said decrypted data structure is addressed; establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet. One would have been motivated to provide a single secure multi-party message that carries information for multiple recipients and the appropriate recipient information could be identified after decryption (Le Saint, [0188]-[0189])
Brit and Le Saint fail to explicitly disclose establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; only if it is established that a decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticating the data packet; and if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Wentink discloses establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, (Wentink, [0094], [0185] describes determining whether a received frame is addressed to the receiver based on receiver-address information)
wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device, (Wentink, [0185] describes performing the actual address comparison; if the receiver’s address does not match PRX, it avoids MIC processing; if it does match, it proceeds)
only if it is established that a decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticating the data packet; and (Wentink, [0093]-[0094]; [0185], FIG 25C discloses the MIC authenticates the message and/or data packet and then teaches using receiver-address information so that the receiver performs the authentication algorithm/MIC processing on fewer packets; [0185] address match to calculate expected MIC if no match then do not calculate it)
if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet, (Wentink, [0185]-[0186], discloses no address match to do not calculate expected MIC to avoid further processing; [0186] discloses that preliminary indicators can allow the receiver to discard a received frame without calculating an expected frame check)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wentink with the method/system of Britt and Le Saint to include wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices. One would have been motivated to avoid unnecessary authentication processing for packets not intended for the receiver and thereby reduce processing and power consumption (Wentink, [0094], [0185]-[0186]).
Regarding claim 3, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt further discloses comprising, if authentication of the data packet succeeds, the client device following one or more commands contained in one or more of the decrypted data structures, (Britt, [0101], [0106] discloses signing the encrypted message so that IoT device 101 can verify that the message is unaltered and from a trusted source, and expressly states that the device validates the signature. The receiving device may verify the authenticity of the message. After the IoT device decrypts the packet to generate the command/data. The device may then process the data and/or execute the command; The system also encrypts the command and/or data into the encrypted IoT device packet and decrypts that packet to recover the command/data and then executing the command)
Regarding claim 10, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt further discloses comprising the client device outputting information based on one or more of the decrypted data structures, (Britt, Abstract/Figure 26A describes a shelf-tag IoT device having a low-power display that outputs product information; [0101], [0106] discloses that data and/or commands intended for the IoT device are encrypted into an IoT-device packet; the device subsequently decrypts the packet to recover the command/data and then processes the recovered data and describes pushing pricing updates to respective shelf-tag IoT devices and [0240], [0242], [0244] and [0246] describe displaying product information on the shelf-tag display)
Regarding claim 17, Britt discloses a client device comprising
receive a radio signal comprising an encrypted data packet, (Brit, [0138], FIG 16B; FIG 18 discloses an encrypted data packet transmitted to an IoT device 101 with the device’s encryption engine receiving and decrypting the packet)
decrypt said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, (Brit [0138] describes decrypting the encrypted data packet at the IoT device)
Brit fails to explicitly disclose said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; decrypting said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, wherein each decrypted data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said decrypted data structure is addressed; establish whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Le Saint discloses said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; (Le Saint, [0187]-[0190], FIG 11 describes a multi-party encrypted message includes multiple encrypted message portions corresponding to recipient computers. The message body contains address information corresponding to those recipient computers)
wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, (Le Saint, [0189] describes identifying the destination associated with each message portion)
wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device, (Le Saint, [0188]-[0189] discloses the address information can come from decrypted message content)
decrypt said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, (Le Saint, [0188], FIG 11 discloses decrypting an encrypted message body and obtains the message body containing recipient related information)
wherein each decrypted data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said decrypted data structure is addressed; (Le Saint, [0188]-[0189], FIG 11, FIG 3 discloses after decrypting the encrypted message body, the proxy obtains address information corresponding to recipient computers and parses the body to identify an address for each encrypted message portion)
if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet, (Le Saint, [0188], describes the message body is encrypted, the proxy decrypts the encrypted message body, and that the resulting message body contains address information corresponding to recipient computers; [0189] the proxy parses the decrypted message body to identify an address for each encrypted message portion, and the address can be routing information, a next hop address or the recipient’s computer’s network address; [0190] describes the proxy routes each encrypted message portion using the corresponding address; also see FIG 11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Le Saint with the method/system of Britt to include said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; decrypting said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, wherein each decrypted data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said decrypted data structure is addressed; establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet.. One would have been motivated to provide a single secure multi-party message that carries information for multiple recipients and the appropriate recipient information could be identified after decryption (Le Saint, [0188]-[0189])
Brit and Le Saint fail to explicitly disclose establish whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; only if it is established that a decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticating the data packet; and if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Wentink discloses establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, (Wentink, [0094], [0185] describes determining whether a received frame is addressed to the receiver based on receiver-address information)
wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device, (Wentink, [0185] describes performing the actual address comparison; if the receiver’s address does not match PRX, it avoids MIC processing; if it does match, it proceeds)
only if it is established that a decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticating the data packet; and (Wentink, [0093]-[0094]; [0185], FIG 25C discloses the MIC authenticates the message and/or data packet and then teaches using receiver-address information so that the receiver performs the authentication algorithm/MIC processing on fewer packets; [0185] address match to calculate expected MIC if no match then do not calculate it)
if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet, (Wentink, [0185]-[0186], discloses no address match to do not calculate expected MIC to avoid further processing; [0186] discloses that preliminary indicators can allow the receiver to discard a received frame without calculating an expected frame check)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wentink with the method/system of Britt and Le Saint to include establish whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; only if it is established that a decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticating the data packet; and if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet. One would have been motivated to avoid unnecessary authentication processing for packets not intended for the receiver and thereby reduce processing and power consumption (Wentink, [0094], [0185]-[0186]).
Regarding claim 19, Britt discloses a radio communication system comprising:
a plurality of client devices; and (Britt, [0038], FIG 1A discloses IoT devices 101-105 communicatively coupled to central IoT hub 110)
an access point arranged to transmit a radio signal comprising an encrypted data packet, (Britt, [0038]-[0040], [0101] describes an IoT hub 110 serves as the central wireless communications point for the IoT devices and transmission of encrypted data packets)
wherein each of the plurality of client devices is arranged to: (Britt, [0038], FIG 1A describes wherein each of the client devices is arranged)
receive a radio signal comprising an encrypted data packet from the access point, (Brit, [0138], FIG 16B; FIG 18 discloses an encrypted data packet transmitted to an IoT device 101 with the device’s encryption engine receiving and decrypting the packet)
decrypt said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, (Brit [0138] describes decrypting the encrypted data packet at the IoT device)
Brit fails to explicitly disclose said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; decrypting said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, wherein each decrypted data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said decrypted data structure is addressed; establish whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Le Saint discloses said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; (Le Saint, [0187]-[0190], FIG 11 describes a multi-party encrypted message includes multiple encrypted message portions corresponding to recipient computers. The message body contains address information corresponding to those recipient computers)
wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, (Le Saint, [0189] describes identifying the destination associated with each message portion)
wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device, (Le Saint, [0188]-[0189] discloses the address information can come from decrypted message content)
decrypt said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, (Le Saint, [0188], FIG 11 discloses decrypting an encrypted message body and obtains the message body containing recipient related information)
wherein each decrypted data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said decrypted data structure is addressed; (Le Saint, [0188]-[0189], FIG 11, FIG 3 discloses after decrypting the encrypted message body, the proxy obtains address information corresponding to recipient computers and parses the body to identify an address for each encrypted message portion)
if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet, (Le Saint, [0188], describes the message body is encrypted, the proxy decrypts the encrypted message body, and that the resulting message body contains address information corresponding to recipient computers; [0189] the proxy parses the decrypted message body to identify an address for each encrypted message portion, and the address can be routing information, a next hop address or the recipient’s computer’s network address; [0190] describes the proxy routes each encrypted message portion using the corresponding address; also see FIG 11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Le Saint with the method/system of Britt to include said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; decrypting said data packet to obtain one or more decrypted data structures, wherein each decrypted data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said decrypted data structure is addressed; establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet.. One would have been motivated to provide a single secure multi-party message that carries information for multiple recipients and the appropriate recipient information could be identified after decryption (Le Saint, [0188]-[0189])
Brit and Le Saint fail to explicitly disclose establish whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; only if it is established that a decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticating the data packet; and if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Wentink discloses establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device, (Wentink, [0094], [0185] describes determining whether a received frame is addressed to the receiver based on receiver-address information)
wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device, (Wentink, [0185] describes performing the actual address comparison; if the receiver’s address does not match PRX, it avoids MIC processing; if it does match, it proceeds)
only if it is established that a decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticating the data packet; and (Wentink, [0093]-[0094]; [0185], FIG 25C discloses the MIC authenticates the message and/or data packet and then teaches using receiver-address information so that the receiver performs the authentication algorithm/MIC processing on fewer packets; [0185] address match to calculate expected MIC if no match then do not calculate it)
if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet, (Wentink, [0185]-[0186], discloses no address match to do not calculate expected MIC to avoid further processing; [0186] discloses that preliminary indicators can allow the receiver to discard a received frame without calculating an expected frame check)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wentink with the method/system of Britt and Le Saint to include establish whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device; wherein establishing whether any of the one or more decrypted data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each decrypted data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device; only if it is established that a decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticating the data packet; and if it is established that no decrypted data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet. One would have been motivated to avoid unnecessary authentication processing for packets not intended for the receiver and thereby reduce processing and power consumption (Wentink, [0094], [0185]-[0186]).
Claims 2, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264), Le Saint et al (“Le Saint,” US 20190014094) in view of Wentink et al (“Wentink,” US 20130128808) and further in view of Park et al (“Park,” US 20210185522).
Regarding claim 2, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices, (Park describes wherein the data packet [0140] comprises a plurality of data structures [0126], [0062] addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices [0098], [0110], [0109])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices. One would have been motivated to provide secure distribution of information via wireless broadcasting (Park, [0001]).
Regarding claim 7, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet is encrypted using symmetric encryption.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses wherein the data packet is encrypted using symmetric encryption (Park [0151] describes wherein the data packet is encrypted using symmetric encryption)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include wherein the data packet is encrypted using symmetric encryption. One would have been motivated to provide secure distribution of information via wireless broadcasting (Park, [0001]).
Regarding claim 18, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the client device of claim 17.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices, (Park describes wherein the data packet [0140] comprises a plurality of data structures [0126], [0062] addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices [0098], [0110], [0109])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices. One would have been motivated to provide secure distribution of information via wireless broadcasting (Park, [0001]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264), Le Saint et al (“Le Saint,” US 20190014094) in view of Wentink et al (“Wentink,” US 20130128808) and further in view of Loupos et al (“Loupos,” US 20210099875).
Regarding claim 4, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose comprising, if authentication of the data packet fails, discarding the data packet
However, in an analogous art, Loupos discloses comprising, if authentication of the data packet fails, discarding the data packet, (Loupos describes [0004] comprising, if authentication of the data packet fails, discarding the data packet)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Loupos with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include comprising, if authentication of the data packet fails, discarding the data packet. One would have been motivated to manage data received from different IoT sensors (Loupos, [0001]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264), Le Saint et al (“Le Saint,” US 20190014094) in view of Wentink et al (“Wentink,” US 20130128808) and further in view of Suzuki et al (“Suzuki,” US 20070150732).
Regarding claim 6, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet includes group address information which identifies a group of client devices to which data structure(s) of the data packet are addressed, and the method comprises discarding the packet immediately if the client device does not belong to the identified group.
However, in an analogous art, Suzuki discloses wherein the data packet includes group address information which identifies a group of client devices to which data structure(s) of the data packet are addressed, and the method comprises discarding the packet immediately if the client device does not belong to the identified group, (Suzuki describes wherein the data packet [0154] includes group address information [0014] which identifies a group of client devices [0014] to which data structure(s) of the data packet [0154] are addressed [0164], and the method comprises discarding the packet [0168] immediately if the client device does not belong to the identified group [0014])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suzuki with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include wherein the data packet includes group address information which identifies a group of client devices to which data structure(s) of the data packet are addressed, and the method comprises discarding the packet immediately if the client device does not belong to the identified group. One would have been motivated to provide user authentication and access control in a wireless access system (Suzuki, [0002]).
Claims 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264), Le Saint et al (“Le Saint,” US 20190014094) in view of Wentink et al (“Wentink,” US 20130128808) and further in view of Lee et al (“Lee,” CN107079023, See Google Patents Translation).
Regarding claim 8, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet comprises an authentication tag generated using cipher-block chaining and authenticating the data packet comprises performing cipher-block chaining operations to verify the authentication tag.
However, in an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the data packet comprises an authentication tag generated using cipher-block chaining and authenticating the data packet comprises performing cipher-block chaining operations to verify the authentication tag, (Lee describes wherein the data packet comprises an authentication tag (Page 16, Lines 1-2) generated using cipher-block chaining (Page 13, First Paragraph) and authenticating the data packet (Page 15, Lines 41-43) comprises performing cipher-block chaining operations (Page 16, Lines 1-2) to verify the authentication tag (Page 16, Lines 1-2)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include wherein the data packet comprises an authentication tag generated using cipher-block chaining and authenticating the data packet comprises performing cipher-block chaining operations to verify the authentication tag. One would have been motivated to increase security in next generation cellular networks (Lee, Page 7, Fourth Paragraph)
Regarding claim 9, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet is authenticated and encrypted using a counter with cipher block chaining message authentication code method, such as AES-CCM.
However, in an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the data packet is authenticated and encrypted using a counter with cipher block chaining message authentication code method, such as AES-CCM., (Lee Page 15, Lines 41-43 describes wherein the data packet is authenticated) and encrypted using a counter with cipher block chaining message authentication code method, such as AES-CCM (Page 15, Lines 36-43)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include wherein the data packet is authenticated and encrypted using a counter with cipher block chaining message authentication code method, such as AES-CCM. One would have been motivated to increase security in next generation cellular networks (Lee, Page 7, Fourth Paragraph).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264), Le Saint et al (“Le Saint,” US 20190014094) in view of Wentink et al (“Wentink,” US 20130128808) and further in view of Ravindra et al (“Ravindra,” US 20180039916).
Regarding claim 11, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose comprising the client device outputting pricing information.
However, in an analogous art, Ravindra discloses comprising the client device outputting pricing information, (Ravindra describes comprising the client device [0011] outputting pricing information [0059], [0049])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ravindra with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include comprising the client device outputting pricing information. One would have been motivated to provide access control for a digital event (Ravindra, [0001]).
Claims 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264), Le Saint et al (“Le Saint,” US 20190014094) in view of Wentink et al (“Wentink,” US 20130128808) and further in view of Cheng et al (“Cheng,” US 20150326659).
Regarding claim 12, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose wherein the client device comprises a display.
However, in an analogous art, Cheng discloses wherein the client device comprises a display, (Cheng describes wherein the client device [0012] comprises a display [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include wherein the client device comprises a display. One would have been motivated to provide handheld mobile computing resources to smart connected devices (Cheng, [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose wherein the client device is battery powered.
However, in an analogous art, Cheng discloses wherein the client device is battery powered, (Cheng describes [0023] wherein the client device is battery powered)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include wherein the client device is battery powered. One would have been motivated to provide handheld mobile computing resources to smart connected devices (Cheng, [0003]).
Regarding claim 16, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of any claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose wherein the client device is a Bluetooth device.
However, in an analogous art, Cheng discloses wherein the client device is a Bluetooth device, (Cheng describes [0032] wherein the client device is a Bluetooth device)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include wherein the client device is a Bluetooth device. One would have been motivated to provide handheld mobile computing resources to smart connected devices (Cheng, [0003]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264), Le Saint et al (“Le Saint,” US 20190014094) in view of Wentink et al (“Wentink,” US 20130128808) and further in view of Zeine et al (“Zeine,” US 20200127704).
Regarding claim 14, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose wherein the client device comprises an Electronic Shelf Label.
However, in an analogous art, Zeine discloses wherein the client device comprises an Electronic Shelf Label, (Zeine, [0033], describes wherein the client device [0033] comprises an Electronic Shelf Label [0086])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zeine with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include wherein the client device comprises an Electronic Shelf Label. One would have been motivated to present communications in a wireless power delivery environment (Zeine, [0101]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264), Le Saint et al (“Le Saint,” US 20190014094) in view of Wentink et al (“Wentink,” US 20130128808) and further in view of Avetisov et al (“Avetisov,” US 20210258308).
Regarding claim 15, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose comprising the client device recording and/or transmitting data from one or more sensors.
However, in an analogous art, Avetisov discloses comprising the client device recording and/or transmitting data from one or more sensors, (Avetisov, [0045] describes comprising the client device and transmitting from one or more sensors)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Avetisov with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include comprising the client device recording and/or transmitting data from one or more sensors. One would have been motivated to provide out-of-band authentication of a user accessing a web service on a first computing device with network access by using a mobile computing device of the user without network access as an authentication factor, (Avetisov, [0002]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264), Le Saint et al (“Le Saint,” US 20190014094) in view of Wentink et al (“Wentink,” US 20130128808) further in view of Abell et al (“Abell,” US 20160035012).
Regarding claim 20, Britt, Le Saint and Wentink disclose the radio communication system of claim 19.
Britt, Le Saint and Wentink fail to explicitly disclose comprising an Electronic Shelf Label system in which the access point comprises an Electronic Shelf Label access point and the client devices comprise Electronic Shelf Labels.
However, in an analogous art, Abell discloses comprising an Electronic Shelf Label system in which the access point comprises an Electronic Shelf Label access point and the client devices comprise Electronic Shelf Labels, (Abell describes comprising an Electronic Shelf Label system [0051] in which the access point [0026] comprises an Electronic Shelf Label access point [0026] and the client devices [0027] comprise Electronic Shelf Labels [0021])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Abell with the method/system of Britt, Le Saint and Wentink to include comprising an Electronic Shelf Label system in which the access point comprises an Electronic Shelf Label access point and the client devices comprise Electronic Shelf Labels. One would have been motivated to provide a system that includes an electronic shelf display strip that extends along the front edge of existing store shelves (Abell, [0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights