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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the identifying the accessory device based on a scan; determining the accessory device is on a filter accept list; determining a condition associated with the accessory device is satisfied; generating a random resolvable address (RRA) based on the IRK uniquely associated with the accessory device; transmitting a connection indication message comprising the RRA to the accessory device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-20 are 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, for the filing date sought, does not originally support nor adequately describes the now claimed the IRK for the accessory device is different than a previously generated IRK for a different accessory device. Applicant’s attorney states that paragraph 25 of the specification supports this new limitation. Paragraph 25 states, “ In contrast, in the example embodiments, when the UE 110 pairs with any one of the accessory devices 115A-115C, the UE 110 will share a randomly generated accessory IRK. Each accessory device 115A-115C to which the UE 110 pairs will have an IRK for the UE 110, but that IRK will not be the device IRK. Thus, if one of the accessory devices 115A-115C is compromised, the device or person that has compromised the accessory device 115A-115C will only know the singular accessory IRK shared by the UE 110 for the individual accessory device 115A-115C that was compromised. Since the UE 110 will not advertise this accessory IRK, the compromised accessory IRK cannot be used to track the UE 110.” The Examiner cannot how this paragraph supports this new limitation at all. The closest paragraph in the specification that even comes to is paragraph 48, which states, “ In 520, the UE 110 (regardless of if the BMS unpair message was transmitted in 520), the UE 110 removes all keys related to the accessory 115A, including the IRK associated with the accessory 115A and the LTK. These operations ensure that on the next pairing of the UE 110 and the accessory 115A that the UE 110 generates a new IRK and LTK. This also ensures that even if the accessory 115A is not compliant and fails to flush the UE 110 keys in 510, there is no leak of user data.” Which shows the IRK for the accessory device is different than a previously generated IRK for the accessory device.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-20 are 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.
In the independent claims, in last line, is “the IRK” the generated IRK or previously generated IRK? Hence, the claims are confusing.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0073367 (Kim, et al) in view of WO 2022/098156 (LG Electronics Inc.)
Kim, et al discloses a method and an apparatus of a wireless device processing circuitry configured to configure transceiver circuitry to transmit a pairing request message to an accessory device (figure 10, #905, #930,¶270). Decode, based on signals received from the accessory device, a pairing response message (¶269-270). Establish a connection with the accessory device which determines that a connection has been established with the accessory device which (¶269-270). Decode, based on signals received from the accessory device, information identifying the accessory device (¶106, 262, 270-285, etc.). Generate an identity resolving key (IRK) uniquely associated with the accessory device and a long-term key (LTK) associated with the accessory device (¶270) and store the IRK and the LTK (¶270).
Kim, et al does not disclose the IRK for the accessory device is different than a previously generated IRK for a different accessory device. LG Electronics Inc. teaches the use of the IRK for the accessory device is different than a previously generated IRK for a different accessory device for the purpose of privacy between the connected BLE devices can be guaranteed, note Abstract, TECH-SOLUTION, “Each time a new out-band communication connection is performed, the wireless power receiver generates a new IRK and transmits the new IRK to the wireless power transmitter.” Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of disclose the IRK for the accessory device is different than a previously generated IRK for a different accessory device, as taught by LG Electronics Inc in the method performed by a wireless device, the apparatus, of LG Electronics Inc device for the purpose of privacy between the connected BLE devices can be guaranteed in order provide a technology for improving security between a wireless transmitter and a wireless receiver.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0073367 (Kim, et al) in view of WO 2022/098156 (LG Electronics Inc.) and in further view of United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0135229 (Ledvina, et al).
Kim, et al in view of LG Electronics Inc disclose all subject matter, note paragraphs above, and also shows transmitting a message from the wireless device to the accessory device, the message comprising the IRK, except for transmitting a message identifying the wireless device to the accessory device, the message comprising the IRK. Ledvina, et al teaches the use of transmitting a message identifying the wireless device to the accessory device, the message comprising the IRK for the purpose of the mobile device can be authenticated using the first wireless protocol when the mobile device, note ¶26, 84, 86, etc, figures 1, 5, #120.
Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of transmitting a message identifying the wireless device to the accessory device, the message comprising the IRK for the purpose of the mobile device can be authenticated using the first wireless protocol when the mobile device, as taught by Ledvina, et al in the method and apparatus of Kim, et al in view of LG Electronics Inc in order for a resolvable random address in the payload can be used to identify a paired device, e.g., using an IRK.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0073367 (Kim, et al) ) in view of WO 2022/098156 (LG Electronics Inc.) and in further view of United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0091254 (Lee, et al) and United States Patent Application Publication 2010/0042824 (Lee, et al).
Kim, et al in view of LG Electronics Inc disclose all subject matter, note paragraphs above, except for deleting the IRK and LTK associated with the accessory device. Lee, et al teaches the use of deleting the LTK for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality and/or integrity of any amount of other information of arbitrary size (e.g., files, programs, data) by the use of strong encryption and/or keyed-hashing, note ¶142. Lee, et al teaches the use of deleting the IRK for the purpose of generating a temporary IRK, note ¶ 131, 140, 151, etc. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of deleting the LTK for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality and/or integrity of any amount of other information of arbitrary size (e.g., files, programs, data) by the use of strong encryption and/or keyed-hashing, as taught by Lee, et al and deleting the IRK for the purpose of generating a temporary IRK, as taught by Lee, et al, in the method of Kim, et al in view of LG Electronics Inc in order to increase overall security and confidentiality.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0073367 (Kim, et al) in view of WO 2022/098156 (LG Electronics Inc.) and in further view of JP 2005/510946.
Kim, et al in view of LG Electronics Inc discloses all subject matter, note paragraphs above, except for transmitting an unpair message to the accessory device. The Examiner takes Official Notice that transmitting an unpair message to an accessory device is some two decades old, well known and commercially available and not invented by Applicant. The Examiner provides JP 2005/510946 as evidence as such. Hence, it whole would have been very obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having below ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate the well-known use of transmitting an unpair message to the accessory device in the method of Kim, et al in view of LG Electronics Inc in order to release communication resources.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 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.
Applicant's arguments filed February 27th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
37 CFR § 1.83(a) sets the content requirements for drawings in a U.S. nonprovisional patent application. It requires that the drawing must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
If a feature is conventional and its detailed illustration is not essential for understanding the invention, it may be shown as a graphical symbol or labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box) rather than a full detailed drawing. Is Applicant’s attorney, in Applicant’s outright refusal to show identifying the accessory device based on a scan; determining the accessory device is on a filter accept list; determining a condition associated with the accessory device is satisfied; generating a random resolvable address (RRA) based on the IRK uniquely associated with the accessory device; transmitting a connection indication message comprising the RRA to the accessory device, stating these features are just conventional and known in the art?
Under MPEP §608.02(e), the Examiner, not Applicant’s attorney, determines that the drawings in a patent application are complete, consistent, and properly described in the specification.
The Examiner finds it is ironic and hypocritical that these features are not shown and Applicant files in new independent claim 21, wishing a patent monopoly on that claimed subject matter, and outright refuses to show these steps in the drawings while showing other steps in other claims.
The Examiner has determined that for better understanding of the invention that these features need and must be shown. The Office and the Examiner wishes cooperation with Applicant’s attorney.
Conclusion
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.
The USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024.
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to Applicant or Applicant's representative.
If Applicants request an interview after this final rejection, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search will be denied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights