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 .
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 10 November 2025:
Claims 12 and 19 are amended.
Claims 13 and 20 are canceled.
Claims 21-22 are added.
Claims 1-12, 14-19 and 21-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 10 November 2025:
a. Applicant’s arguments that Shemesh does not teach or suggest a configurable surface has been fully considered but is deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
b. Applicant’s arguments that Shemesh also does not disclose emitting at least one encoded message using one or more light sources and then modifying the emitted at least one encoded message using the configurable surface based at least in part on the at least one control signal has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to Shemesh, Column 20, Lines 62 – 67 and Column 21, Lines 1 – 2, see “…light can be emitted from either the requesting client or the authenticating device and detected using the other device. The light can be modulated to provide communication between devices. For example, a frequency, timing, and amount of light can be generated by the emitting device. The light can be used to convey a one-time code and/or to determine an RTT between devices…”, where “The light can be used to convey a one-time code” is being read as emitting, in the physical environment, at least one encoded message (one-time code) for the at least one device using one or more light sources. Applicant’s attention is further directed to Shemesh, Column 20, Lines 62 – 67, see “…light can be emitted from either the requesting client or the authenticating device and detected using the other device. The light can be modulated to provide communication between devices. For example, a frequency, timing, and amount of light can be generated by the emitting device”, where “The light can be modulated…a frequency, timing, and amount of light can be generated” is being read as modifying the emitted at least one encoded message (through modulation) based at least in part on the at least one control signal (the control signal being the instructions the system gives the monitor, or other emitting device in the physical environment to present for the client device to capture. Applicant’s attention is further directed to the fact that the light is emitted before it is modulated, which satisfies the claimed limitations.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14, 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shemesh et al. (U.S. Patent 11,632,366), hereinafter Shemesh, in view of Huang et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2025/0317165), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 1, Shemesh teaches A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining at least one authentication request comprising at least one identifier of at least one device (Shemesh, FIG. 5, see “510”, which receives a request from a requesting client device to access a secured server) (Shemesh, Column 18, Lines 28 – 30, see “…The request can include identifying information for the client device and/or a user of the client device”);
generating at least one control signal to configure one or more characteristics of a (Shemesh, Column 5, Lines 25 – 67, see “Additional authentication steps can include having the secured website send a command to the mobile device…to gather environmental information…that can be sent to servers of the secured website and used to ascertain that the mobile device is in close proximity to the computer and/or to the user…a level of light present at the mobile device which can be varied by prompting the user to either obscure the mobile device with his or her hand or position the mobile device near a light source (such as the computer monitor which can be presenting a bright image of the website (e.g., a white screen)”, where “computer monitor which can be presenting a bright image of the website (e.g., a white screen)” is being read as generating at least one control signal to configure one or more characteristics of a configurable surface located in a physical environment (computer monitor in the physical environment) based at least in part on the at least one identifier of the device (subsequent to receiving the authentication request including the identifier from the device));
emitting, in the physical environment, at least one encoded message for the at least one device using one or more light sources (Shemesh, Column 20, Lines 62 – 67 and Column 21, Lines 1 – 2, see “…light can be emitted from either the requesting client or the authenticating device and detected using the other device. The light can be modulated to provide communication between devices. For example, a frequency, timing, and amount of light can be generated by the emitting device. The light can be used to convey a one-time code and/or to determine an RTT between devices…”, where “The light can be used to convey a one-time code” is being read as emitting, in the physical environment, at least one encoded message (one-time code) for the at least one device using one or more light sources);
modifying the emitted at least one encoded message using the (Shemesh, Column 20, Lines 62 – 67, see “…light can be emitted from either the requesting client or the authenticating device and detected using the other device. The light can be modulated to provide communication between devices. For example, a frequency, timing, and amount of light can be generated by the emitting device”, where “The light can be modulated…a frequency, timing, and amount of light can be generated” is being read as modifying the emitted at least one encoded message (through modulation) based at least in part on the at least one control signal (the control signal being the instructions the system gives the monitor, or other emitting device in the physical environment to present for the client device to capture); and
determining whether to authenticate the at least one device based at least in part on information transmitted by the at least one device in response to the at least one message (Shemesh, Column 19, Lines 9 – 23, see “…the captured environmental information can be used to verify the requesting client device and the authenticating device are near each other…verifying that electromagnetic information (such as an image or series of images in the visible spectrum or an intensity of light) generated by the requesting client device was captured by the authenticating device…”, where “verifying that electromagnetic information…generated by the requesting client device” is being read as determining whether to authenticate the at least one device based on information transmitted by the at least one device (the electromagnetic information generated by the requesting client device) in response to the at least one message);
wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (Shemesh, FIG. 6, which depicts at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory).
Shemesh does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Huang: generating at least one control signal to configure one or more characteristics of a configurable surface located in a physical environment (Huang, Paragraph [0099], see “…The RIS CU 215 may configure each of the reflective elements 235 to control how an incident beam or wave may be reflected or to control a shape of a reflected beam or wave…A RIS 205 may be an example of or may otherwise be referred to as a software-controlled metasurface, a configurable reflective surface, a reflective intelligent surface, or a configurable intelligent surface…”, where “software-controlled metasurface” is analogous to a configurable surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Shemesh, by implementing techniques of utilizing a configurable surface, disclosed of Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for device authentication using light-based communications, comprising of utilizing a configurable surface. This allows for better security management by utilizing a configurable surface, such as a metasurface, which provides advanced anti-counterfeiting through unique light images to authenticate a device. Huang is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of utilizing a configurable surface (Huang, Paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 2, Shemesh as modified by Huang teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more characteristics of the configurable surface comprise at least one of: a wavelength, a frequency, an intensity, and a polarization of the light (Shemesh, Column 20, Lines 62 – 67, see “…light can be emitted from either the requesting client or the authenticating device and detected using the other device. The light can be modulated to provide communication between devices. For example, a frequency, timing, and amount of light can be generated by the emitting device”).
Regarding claim 3, Shemesh as modified by Huang teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
preventing an authentication of the at least one device in response to determining that the information is not received within a specified period of time (Shemesh, Column 16, Lines 10 – 17, see “…The command can specify a time period to perform the capturing of information…the command can cause the authenticating device to emit a stimulus to prompt the client device to affect the environment so that the authentication time period can be measured without accounting for communication delays between the network traffic manager and the authenticating device or the client device…”).
Regarding claim 6, Shemesh as modified by Huang teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one authentication request is transmitted by the at least one device to gain access to one or more of a system and a service (Shemesh, Abstract, see “…a method can include receiving a request from a requesting client device to access a secured server…”, where “secured server” is being read as comprising a system and/or a service).
Regarding claim 8, Shemesh as modified by Huang teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the authentication of the at least one device is further based on respective physical locations of the at least one device and the one or more light sources (Shemesh, Column 16, Lines 54 – 57, see “…The environmental information captured from the different devices can be compared using statistical techniques (e.g., correlated) to generate a probability that the devices are located in the same location…”) (Shemesh, Column 20, Lines 40 – 47, see “Environmental information can be used in various ways to determine the proximity of the requesting client and the authenticating device…the environmental information can be ambient in the physical location of the requesting client and the authenticating device”).
Regarding claim 9, Shemesh as modified by Huang teaches A non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device causes the at least one processing device (Shemesh, Column 2, Lines 10 – 13, see “…computer programs recorded on one or more non-transitory computer readable media…each configured to perform the actions of the methods”):
Claim 9 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Shemesh does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Huang: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the configurable surface comprises at least one of:
a reconfigurable intelligent surface; and
a meta-surface (Huang, Paragraph [0099], see “…A RIS 205 may be an example of or may otherwise be referred to as a software-controlled metasurface, a configurable reflective surface, a reflective intelligent surface, or a configurable intelligent surface…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Shemesh, by implementing techniques of the configurable surface being an intelligent surface or a meta-surface, disclosed of Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for device authentication using light-based communications, comprising of the configurable surface being an intelligent surface or a meta-surface. This allows for better security management and real-time, software-controlled manipulation of the propagation environment. Huang is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the configurable surface being an intelligent surface or a meta-surface (Huang, Paragraph [0099]).
Claims 4-5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shemesh, in view of Huang, in further view of Grzenda et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2022/0028194), hereinafter Grzenda.
Regarding claim 4, Shemesh as modified by Huang do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Grzenda: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the information comprises a digital key, and wherein the determining is further based on a validation of the digital key (Grzenda, Paragraph [0010], see “…the authorization data provided to the locking device and the user computing device can include a digital access key, the digital access key including a pre-determined usage limit…”) (Grzenda, Paragraph [0171], see “…the security command can include one or more digital access keys to be validated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Shemesh, and techniques disclosed of Huang, by implementing techniques of validating a digital key, disclosed of Grzenda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for device authentication using light-based communications and configurable surfaces, comprising of validating a digital key. This allows for better security management and improved user experience by utilizing a digital key for authentication purposes. Grzenda is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of validating a digital key (Grzenda, Paragraph [0171]).
Regarding claim 5, Shemesh as modified by Huang do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Grzenda: The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
preventing an authentication of the at least one device in response to determining that the digital key is invalid (Grzenda, Paragraph [0185], see “If the lock processing unit 114 determines that the user computing device 140 is not authorized (i.e., any one of the digital access keys received from the server 120 being invalid…”, which is being read as preventing an authentication of the device in response to determining that the digital key (digital access key) is invalid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Shemesh, and techniques disclosed of Huang, by implementing techniques of preventing an authentication of the device in response to determining that the digital key is invalid, disclosed of Grzenda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for device authentication using light-based communications and configurable surfaces, comprising of preventing an authentication of the device in response to determining that the digital key is invalid. This allows for better security management and enhanced security by preventing an authentication in response to determining the digital key is invalid. Grzenda is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of preventing an authentication of the device in response to determining that the digital key is invalid (Grzenda, Paragraph [0185]).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 4 and 5.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shemesh, in view of Huang, in further view of Zayats et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2022/0329628), hereinafter Zayats.
Regarding claim 7, Shemesh as modified by Huang do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Zayats: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one device comprises an edge device in an edge computing environment (Zayats, Abstract, see “…implementing secure communications between edge devices providing cloud computing services in an edge environment”) (Zayats, Paragraph [0099], see “…by validating the digital signature and therefore authenticating the edge device 1002 as a trusted device…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Shemesh, and techniques disclosed of Huang, by implementing techniques of an edge device comprising in an edge computing environment, disclosed of Zayats.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for device authentication using light-based communications and configurable surfaces, comprising of an edge device comprising in an edge computing environment. This allows for better security management, as well as lower costs and reduced latency through local data processing. Zayats is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of an edge device comprising in an edge computing environment (Zayats, Paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499