DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Arguments /Remarks filed on 01/06/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 19 is a new claim; claims 1-9 were cancelled; claim 10 has been amended; and claims 10 and 19 are independent claims. Claims 10-19 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 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 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mary et al. (hereinafter Mary), Application No.; AU 2017225254 in view of Kravitz et al. (Kravitz), Pub. No.: US 2017/0324717.
Referring to claim 10, Mary teaches a method of securing communication between a first domestic appliance and a second domestic appliance through a remote server, the method comprising:
receiving a first appliance ID and a first public key of the first domestic appliance (abstract, Detailed Description on pgs. 4-5, lines 17, first device 1 is sending key);
receiving a second appliance ID and a second public key of the second domestic
appliance (abstract, detail description on pgs. 4-5; claim 1);
transmitting the first appliance ID and the first public key to the second domestic appliance (page 5, line 26-37, bidirectional communication processes);
transmitting the second appliance ID and the second public key to the first domestic appliance (page 5, line 26-37, bidirectional communication processes).
Mary does not explicitly disclose generating an encryption key at the first and second appliances using the first and second public keys; and directing use of the encryption key in intra-appliance communication over a secondary connection wherein the encryption key is generated independently at both the first appliance and the second appliance.
However, in an analogous art, Kravitz discloses generating an encryption key at the first and second appliances using the first and second public keys; and directing use of the encryption key in intra-appliance communication over a secondary connection wherein the encryption key is generated independently at both the first appliance and the second appliance (claims 1, 7 and 12, secure communication between a first electronic device and a second electronic device, each electronic device including a hardware processor and associated memory, the method comprising: creating, by the first electronic device, a first set of encryption keys including a first public encryption key, a first private encryption key and a first digital token; creating, by the second electronic device, a second set of encryption keys including a second public encryption key, a second private encryption key and a second digital token).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine the teachings of Mary with the method and system of Kravitz, wherein generating an encryption key at the first and second appliances using the first and second public keys; and directing use of the encryption key in intra-appliance communication over a secondary connection wherein the encryption key is generated independently at both the first appliance and the second appliance to provide users/enable with a means for field of enabling security based communication lines established between users when using X.509-compatible PKI and PMI and related tools (see FIG. 1 “High-Level Depiction of Component- and Functional-Relationships in Combined Service Provider Model”) (para. 0002).
Referring to claims 11, Mary and Kravitz teach the method of claim 10. Mary further teaches wherein the secondary connection channel is a direct wireless connection channel (Mary: Detail Description, page 4-6; pages 9-12, type of connections).
Referring to claims 12, Mary and Kravitz teach the method of claim 11. Mary further teaches wherein directing use of the encryption key in intra-appliance communication comprises establishing a direct connection between the first and second domestic appliances, and encrypting messages between the first and second domestic appliances according to the encryption key (Mary: abstract, detail description on pgs. 4-5; claim 1;).
Referring to claims 13, Mary and Kravitz teach the method of claim 12. Mary further teaches wherein directing use of the encryption key is automatic in response to transmitting the first appliance ID and the first public key to the second domestic appliance and transmitting the second appliance ID and the second public key to the first domestic appliance (Mary: page 5, line 26-37).
Referring to claims 14, Mary and Kravitz teach the method of claim 10. Mary further teaches wherein the first appliance ID and the first public key of the first domestic appliance are received through a local wireless network, and wherein the second appliance ID and the second public key of the second domestic appliance are received through the local wireless network (Mary: abstract, detail description on pgs. 4-5; claim 1;).
Referring to claims 15, Mary and Kravitz teach the method of claim 10. Mary further teaches wherein the first appliance ID comprises a MAC address of the first domestic appliance (Mary: page 8, 4-6, MAC).
Referring to claims 16, Mary and Kravitz teach the method of claim 10. Mary further teaches wherein the first appliance ID identifier comprises a device-model descriptor (Mary: abstract, detail description on pgs. 4-5).
Referring to claims 17, Mary and Kravitz teach the method of claim 10. Mary further teaches wherein the first appliance ID comprises a serial number of the first domestic appliance (Mary: abstract, detail description on pgs. 4-5).
Referring to claims 18, Mary and Kravitz teach the method of claim 10. Mary further teaches comprising: identifying the first domestic appliance as a first commissioned appliance previously associated with a user account, and identifying the second domestic appliance as a second commissioned appliance previously associated with the user account (Mary: abstract, detail description on pgs. 4-5; claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YONAS A BAYOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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 at 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 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.
/YONAS A BAYOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 03/10/2026