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 .
This written action is responding to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) dated on 08/13/2025.
Claim 1-20 are previously presented.
Claim 1-20 is pending.
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has attempted to contact the applicant representative to discuss further amendments to the claims to put the application in condition of allowance. Examiner suggests the applicant representative to contact the examiner to discuss further amendment for a possible compact prosecution. The examiner contact details are provided in the “Conclusion” section.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 13, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
This application filed on December 12, 2023 claims priority of Parent application 17/244,749 filed on April 29, 2021 which claims priority of provisional application 63/021,040 filed on May 06, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The following Information Disclosure Statements in the instant application submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and thus, have been fully considered:
IDS filed on 12 December 2023.
IDS filed on 13 August 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment dated on August 13, 2025 has claim 1-20 previously presented.
Applicant’s remark, filed on August 13, 2025 on middle of page 8 regarding the Obviousness Type Double Patenting Rejections has been considered, the prior obviousness double patenting rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remark, filed on August 13, 2025 on middle of page 9 regarding, “However, the Office Action does not assert that Jayachandran discloses ephemeral unique identifiers. Rather, the Office Action merely asserts that Jayachandran discloses unique identifiers” and further remark, on bottom of page 9 regarding “Because the Office Action neither shows that the references teach or suggest each and every claim element of claim 1 nor explains why the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, the Office Action fails to present a prima facie case that claim 1 is obvious and the rejections are thus improper”, has been considered, however is not found persuasive. As, the applicant has suggested the rejection is combination of prior arts by Boss, Ville and Jayachandran. As cited in previous office action on page 13, Ville teaches, “When two users are in proximity, mobile phones calculate a common secret using the Diffie-Hellman key exchange algorithm. The result of this key exchange is hashed with a cryptographic hash function together with the exchanged Bluetooth messages:
RID = H( DH || exchanged Bluetooth messages ),
where DH is the result of the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, RID a unique Rendezvous
IDentifier, a common secret identifying the particular encounter, not the parties
involved. It is essential to note, that the RID is a secret that both parties share, and
no one else knows.
If the two people would meet again, new random values would be in place, making the RID different for each such encounter.
Diffie-Hellman key exchange is a widely used algorithm to generate a shared secret.
It has a paramount advantage, that an eavesdropper cannot compute the
outcome. Consequentially, the eavesdropper will remain unaware what the RID
was”. (Page-4, Lines 3-11, Page-4, Lines 12-21). Thus Ville clearly teaches ephemeral unique identifiers are utilized for interaction between two users. Jayachandran teaches, “processes may alternatively, or additionally be used for contact tracing. If individuals report positive test results, then this may be used to enable a system where others who had recently been in contact with a positive individual can determine that they may have been exposed to a positive individual. For example, a smart phone-app may exchange random ID numbers with all nearby phones, that each record the IDs. Later, if someone has a positive test result and reports this along with the ID numbers issued or received, or some cryptographic function thereof, then this data may be used for anyone to determine whether they had been near a positive person without revealing the identity of any individuals involved and without the involvement of any trusted party at any point following preparation of the tests (and in particular without involvement of any trusted party in the performance of tests)”. (¶57). Thus Jayachandran teaches, resolving identities of plurality of endpoints with which particular device has interacted. Thus combination of Ville and Jayachandran teaches “resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted; wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted comprises comparing the ephemeral unique identifiers from the interactions in a set of stored ephemeral unique identifiers”. In addition as explained on office action page 15, “As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Jayachandran with the invention of Boss in view of Villie.
Boss in view of Villie teaches, collecting interactions between endpoint devices and associating with identifiers of devices and generating an ephemeral identifier and associating with interactions between two devices. Jayachandran teaches, resolving identities based on comparison of unique identifier with unique identifiers stored during an interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to resolve identities based on comparison of unique identifier with unique identifiers stored during an interaction of Jayachandran into the teachings of Boss in view of Ville so individuals can perform a nucleic acid test to determine if they are currently infected by a virus and report this anonymously in order for others who had recently been near them to know that they may have been exposed to the virus. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)”. Thus contrary to applicant’s assertion, the office action clearly teaches, “resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted; wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted comprises comparing the ephemeral unique identifiers from the interactions in a set of stored ephemeral unique identifiers”.
Applicant’s remark, filed on August 13, 2025 on bottom of page 10 regarding the, “The Office Action fails to carry this burden because the Office Action does not assert that it would have been obvious to resolve identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted compris [ing] comparing the ephemeral unique identifiers from the interactions in a set of stored ephemeral unique identifiers. Because the Office Action fails to present a prima facie case that claim 1 is obvious, the rejection is improper. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn”, has been considered, however is not found persuasive. Please refer to above paragraph 12 that shows how the cited prior art teaches the limitations.
Applicant’s remark, filed on August 13, 2025 on bottom of page 10 regarding Claim 13 and 19 have been considered and addressed in above paragraph 12 regarding independent Claim 1, which recites similar limitations.
Applicant further recites similar remarks as listed above for dependent claims, 2-7, 11-12, 14-18 and 20. Please see response for remarks in above paragraph 12 that clearly shows how the cited prior arts Boss, Ville, Jayachandran and Lenon clearly teaches the claimed limitations.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-13, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,842,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Please refer to table below.
Instant Application 18/537,722
US PAT. # US 11,842,818 (App. # 17/244,749)
CONTACT TRACING AMONG WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES
CONTACT TRACING AMONG WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES
1
A method, comprising: collecting from a plurality of endpoint devices a set of interactions with a particular device, wherein each interaction in the set of interactions is based on an ephemeral unique identifier of each endpoint device of the plurality of endpoint devices involved in a corresponding interaction with the particular device; and resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted; wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted comprises comparing the ephemeral unique identifiers from the interactions in a set of stored ephemeral unique identifiers.
1
A method, comprising: collecting from each endpoint device of a plurality of endpoint devices a set of anonymized interactions of a corresponding endpoint device with other endpoint devices, wherein each anonymized interaction in the set of anonymized interactions is based on an ephemeral unique identifier of another endpoint device involved in a corresponding anonymized interaction with the corresponding endpoint device; for each endpoint device, resolving identities of the other endpoint devices with which the corresponding endpoint device has interacted from the corresponding set of anonymized interactions; precomputing ephemeral unique identifiers for each endpoint device; and storing the precomputed ephemeral unique identifiers for each endpoint device, wherein: each anonymized interaction includes an ephemeral unique identifier of a corresponding one of the other endpoint devices with which the corresponding device has interacted; and resolving identities of the other endpoint devices with which the corresponding device has interacted comprises searching for ephemeral unique identifiers from the anonymized interactions in the stored precomputed ephemeral unique identifiers.
13
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer- readable instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to cause a system to perform operations comprising: collect from a first endpoint device, an interaction with a particular device, wherein the interaction is based on an ephemeral unique identifier of either the first endpoint device or a second endpoint device involved in a corresponding interaction with the corresponding particular device; and resolve an identity of one or more of the first endpoint device or the second endpoint device with which the corresponding endpoint device has interacted.
9
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to cause a system to perform operations comprising: collect from each endpoint device of a plurality of endpoint devices a set of anonymized interactions of a corresponding endpoint device with other endpoint devices, wherein each anonymized interaction in the set of anonymized interactions is based on an ephemeral unique identifier of another endpoint device involved in a corresponding anonymized interaction with the corresponding endpoint device; for each endpoint device, resolve identities of the other endpoint devices with which the corresponding endpoint device has interacted from the corresponding set of anonymized interactions; precompute ephemeral unique identifiers for each endpoint device; and store the precomputed ephemeral unique identifiers for each endpoint device, wherein: each anonymized interaction includes an ephemeral unique identifier of a corresponding one of the other endpoint devices with which the corresponding device has interacted; and wherein when resolving identities of the other endpoint devices with which the corresponding device has interacted the system is configured to search for ephemeral unique identifiers from the anonymized interactions in the stored precomputed ephemeral unique identifiers.
###
10
A method, comprising: generating, over time, a plurality of ephemeral unique identifiers for a first endpoint device, wherein each of the plurality of ephemeral unique identifiers is specific to the first endpoint device and is configured to identify the first endpoint device; scanning for other endpoint devices; in response to detecting a second endpoint device while scanning: providing a current ephemeral unique identifier of the first endpoint device to the second endpoint device; and receiving a current ephemeral unique identifier of the second endpoint device at the first endpoint device; and adding an anonymized interaction with the second endpoint device to a set of anonymized interactions of the first endpoint device with other endpoint devices, each anonymized interaction in the set of anonymized interactions based on a corresponding ephemeral unique identifier of a corresponding endpoint device received during a corresponding interaction between the first endpoint device and the corresponding endpoint device.
19
A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:collect from a plurality of endpoint devices a set of interactions with a particular device, wherein each interaction in the set of interactions is based on an ephemeral unique identifier of each endpoint device of the plurality of endpoint devices involved in a corresponding interaction with the particular device; andresolve identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted; wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted comprises comparing the ephemeral unique identifiers from the interactions in a set of stored ephemeral unique identifiers.
18
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to cause a system to perform operations comprising: generate, over time, a plurality of ephemeral unique identifiers for a first endpoint device, wherein each of the plurality of ephemeral unique identifiers is specific to the first endpoint device and is configured to identify the first endpoint device; scan for other endpoint devices; and in response to detecting a second endpoint device while scanning: provide a current ephemeral unique identifier of the first endpoint device to the second endpoint device; and receive a current ephemeral unique identifier of the second endpoint device at the first endpoint device; and add an anonymized interaction with the second endpoint device to a set of anonymized interactions of the first endpoint device with other endpoint devices, each anonymized interaction in the set of anonymized interactions based on a corresponding ephemeral unique identifier of a corresponding endpoint device received during a corresponding interaction between the first endpoint device and the corresponding endpoint device.
6
The method of claim 5, wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted further comprises, in response to a given interaction matching a given stored precomputed ephemeral unique identifier that is associated with a given endpoint device, determining that the corresponding endpoint device interacted with the particular device.
2
The method of claim 1, wherein resolving identities of the other endpoint devices with which the corresponding device has interacted further comprises, in response to a given anonymized interaction matching a given stored precomputed ephemeral unique identifier that is associated with a given endpoint device, determining that the corresponding endpoint device interacted with the given endpoint device.
7
The method of claim 5, wherein: each endpoint device has a corresponding secret key known to a network operator; and each ephemeral unique identifier is precomputed based at least in part on a corresponding secret key and a counter.
3
The method of claim 1, wherein: each endpoint device has a corresponding secret key known to a network operator; and each ephemeral unique identifier is precomputed based at least in part on a corresponding secret key and a counter.
8
The method of claim 7, wherein precomputing ephemeral unique identifiers comprises, for each endpoint device: generating a plurality of deterministic seeds from the corresponding secret key and a plurality of counter values; and generating a plurality of ephemeral public key pairs from the plurality of deterministic seeds, wherein each precomputed ephemeral unique identifier comprises a different one of the plurality of ephemeral public key pairs.
4
The method of claim 3, wherein precomputing ephemeral unique identifiers comprises, for each endpoint device: generating a plurality of deterministic seeds from the corresponding secret key and a plurality of counter values; and generating a plurality of ephemeral public key pairs from the plurality of deterministic seeds, wherein each precomputed ephemeral unique identifier comprises a different one of the plurality of ephemeral public key pairs.
9
The method of claim 8, wherein generating the plurality of deterministic seeds comprises generating a plurality of hash values, each hash value being a hash of the corresponding secret key and a different counter value of the plurality of counter values.
5
The method of claim 4, wherein generating the plurality of deterministic seeds comprises generating a plurality of hash values, each hash value being a hash of the corresponding secret key and a different counter value of the plurality of counter values.
10
The method of claim 8, wherein generating the plurality of ephemeral public key pairs comprises generating a plurality of Curve25519 public keys, each Curve25519 public key generated using a different deterministic seed of the plurality of deterministic seeds as input.
6
The method of claim 4, wherein generating the plurality of ephemeral public key pairs comprises generating a plurality of Curve25519 public keys, each Curve25519 public key generated using a different deterministic seed of the plurality of deterministic seeds as input.
11
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a first user of the particular device was exposed to a second user of another endpoint device based on whether an identity of any of the other endpoint device is among the resolved identities of the plurality of endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted.
7
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a first user of the corresponding endpoint device was exposed to a second user of another endpoint device based on whether an identity of the other endpoint device is among the resolved identities of the other endpoint devices with which the corresponding endpoint device has interacted.
12
he method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of endpoint devices are borne by users at a job site, the method further comprising determining, based on a plurality of interactions with endpoint devices having known locations within the job site, at least one of: one or more patterns of movement of the users at the job site; analytics regarding frequency of visits by users to each of one or more locations within the job site; or analytics regarding number of interactions between the users at each of one or more locations within the job site.
8
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of endpoint devices are borne by users at a job site, the method further comprising determining, based on a plurality of interactions with endpoint devices having known locations within the job site, at least one of: one or more patterns of movement of the users at the job site; analytics regarding frequency of visits by users to each of one or more locations within the job site; or analytics regarding number of interactions between the users at each of one or more locations within the job site.
15
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted further comprises, in response to a given interaction matching a given stored precomputed ephemeral unique identifier that is associated with a given endpoint device, determining that the corresponding endpoint device interacted with the particular device.
2
The method of claim 1, wherein resolving identities of the other endpoint devices with which the corresponding device has interacted further comprises, in response to a given anonymized interaction matching a given stored precomputed ephemeral unique identifier that is associated with a given endpoint device, determining that the corresponding endpoint device interacted with the given endpoint device.
16
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein: each endpoint device has a corresponding secret key known to a network operator; and each ephemeral unique identifier is precomputed based at least in part on a corresponding secret key and a counter.
3
The method of claim 1, wherein: each endpoint device has a corresponding secret key known to a network operator; and each ephemeral unique identifier is precomputed based at least in part on a corresponding secret key and a counter.
18
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the plurality of endpoint devices are borne by users at a job site, the method further comprising determining, based on a plurality of interactions with endpoint devices having known locations within the job site, at least one of:one or more patterns of movement of the users at the job site; analytics regarding frequency of visits by users to each of one or more locations within the job site; or analytics regarding number of interactions between the users at each of one or more locations within the job site.
8
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of endpoint devices are borne by users at a job site, the method further comprising determining, based on a plurality of interactions with endpoint devices having known locations within the job site, at least one of: one or more patterns of movement of the users at the job site; analytics regarding frequency of visits by users to each of one or more locations within the job site; or analytics regarding number of interactions between the users at each of one or more locations within the job site.
20
The system of claim 19, the operations further comprising to determine whether a first user of the particular device was exposed to a second user of another endpoint device based on whether an identity of the other endpoint device is among the resolved identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted.
7
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a first user of the corresponding endpoint device was exposed to a second user of another endpoint device based on whether an identity of the other endpoint device is among the resolved identities of the other endpoint devices with which the corresponding endpoint device has interacted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2018/0052970, hereinafter “Boss”, provided by the applicant in an IDS), and further in view of Ville et al. (NPL, “VTT Technical Research Center of Finland”, hereinafter “Ville”), and further in view of Jayachandran et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2021/0312078, priority based on provisional application 63/003,810 filed on 04/01/2020).
Referring to Claims 1, 13 and 19:
Regarding Claim 1, Boss teaches,
A method, comprising:
collecting from a plurality of endpoint devices a set of interactions with a particular device wherein each interaction in the set of interactions is based on [an ephemeral] unique identifier of each endpoint device of the plurality of endpoint devices involved in a corresponding interaction with the particular endpoint device; (Fig. 2, ¶54, “receives identification 210A or other tokenized information of other user device 204, encryption component 216 can encrypt or anonymize identification 210A of other user device 204 and any associated data”, ¶55, “Contact record 224 can contain a set of data associated with the contact, including, but not limited to: anonymized identification numbers associated with other user devices 204”, ¶56, ¶82, i.e. set of interaction are collected among devices, Fig. 2, ¶51, “Identification 210 can be a unique identifier associated with user device 200 and can be registered with exposure processor/system 222 so that exposure processor 222 can identify user device 200”, ¶55, “content tracking application 212 can store the contact in history storage 214 as contact record 224. Contact record 224 can contain a set of data associated with the contact, including, but not limited to: anonymized identification numbers associated with other user devices 204”, ¶57, “device 200 can upload contact records 224 to storage 220”, Fig. 6 (602, 604), ¶84) and
Boss does not teach explicitly,
[collecting from a plurality of endpoint devices a set of interactions with a particular device wherein each interaction in the set of interactions is based on] an ephemeral [unique identifier of each endpoint device of the plurality of endpoint devices involved in a corresponding interaction with the particular endpoint device];
resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted; wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted comprises comparing the [ephemeral] unique identifiers from the interactions in a set of stored ephemeral unique identifiers.
However, Ville teaches,
[collecting from a plurality of endpoint devices a set of interactions with a particular device wherein each interaction in the set of interactions is based on] an ephemeral (Fig. 1, Page 4, Lines (3-11), Page 4, Lines (12-21), “If the two people would meet again, new random values would be in place, making the RID different for each such encounter”, i.e. RID (identifier) is an ephemeral unique identifier) [unique identifier of each endpoint device of the plurality of endpoint devices involved in a corresponding interaction with the particular endpoint device];
[resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted; wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted comprises comparing the] ephemeral (Fig. 1, Page 4, Lines (3-11), Page 4, Lines (12-21), “If the two people would meet again, new random values would be in place, making the RID different for each such encounter”, i.e. RID (identifier) is an ephemeral unique identifier) [unique identifiers from the interactions in a set of stored] ephemeral (Fig. 1, Page 4, Lines (3-11), Page 4, Lines (12-21), “If the two people would meet again, new random values would be in place, making the RID different for each such encounter”, i.e. RID (identifier) is an ephemeral unique identifier) [unique identifiers].
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Villie with the invention of Boss.
Boss teaches, collecting interactions between two endpoint devices and encrypting the interactions and associating with identifiers of devices. Villie teaches, generating an ephemeral identifier and associating with interactions between two devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to generating an ephemeral identifier and associating with interactions between two devices of Villie with collecting interactions between two endpoint devices and encrypting the interactions and associating with identifiers of devices of Boss to protect the interactions between two devices from an eavesdropper.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Combination of Boss and Ville does not teach explicitly,
resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted; wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted comprises comparing the [ephemeral] unique identifiers from the interactions in a set of stored [ephemeral] unique identifiers.
However, Jayachandran teaches,
resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted; wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted comprises comparing the [ephemeral] unique identifiers from the interactions in a set of stored [ephemeral] unique identifiers. (¶57, “a smart phone-app may exchange random ID numbers with all nearby phones”, “anyone to determine whether they had been near a positive person without revealing the identity of any individuals involved and without the involvement of any trusted party at any point following preparation of the tests”, i.e. identity is resolved based on comparison of unique identifier with stored unique identifies).
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Jayachandran with the invention of Boss in view of Villie.
Boss in view of Villie teaches, collecting interactions between endpoint devices and associating with identifiers of devices and generating an ephemeral identifier and associating with interactions between two devices. Jayachandran teaches, resolving identities based on comparison of unique identifier with unique identifiers stored during an interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to resolve identities based on comparison of unique identifier with unique identifiers stored during an interaction of Jayachandran into the teachings of Boss in view of Ville so individuals can perform a nucleic acid test to determine if they are currently infected by a virus and report this anonymously in order for others who had recently been near them to know that they may have been exposed to the virus. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 13, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim of above method Claim 1, and therefore Claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 19, it is a System Claim of above method Claim 1, and therefore Claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 2, rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Boss does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 1, wherein the ephemeral unique identifier includes an identifier that is periodically changed.
However, Ville teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the ephemeral unique identifier includes an identifier that is periodically changed. (Page - 4, “If the two people would meet again, new random values would be in place, making the RID different for each such encounter” , i.e. ephemeral identifier changes periodically).
Regarding Claim 3, rejection of Claim 2 is included and for the same motivation Boss does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 2, wherein identifier is periodically changed in view of a particular amount of time.
However, Ville teaches,
The method of claim 2, wherein identifier is periodically changed in view of a particular amount of time. (Page - 4, “If the two people would meet again, new random values would be in place, making the RID different for each such encounter” , i.e. ephemeral identifier changes periodically).
Regarding Claim 4, rejection of Claim 2 is included and for the same motivation Boss does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 2, wherein identifier is periodically changed in view of an algorithm.
However, Ville teaches,
The method of claim 2, wherein identifier is periodically changed in view of an algorithm. (Page-4, Lines (3-11), DH Algorithm, “If the two people would meet again, new random values would be in place, making the RID different for each such encounter” , i.e. ephemeral identifier changes periodically”).
Referring to Claims 5 and 14:
Regarding Claim 5, rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Boss teaches,
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein:
each interaction includes [an ephemeral] unique identifier of a corresponding one of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted. (Fig. 2, ¶54, “receives identification 210A or other tokenized information of other user device 204, encryption component 216 can encrypt or anonymize identification 210A of other user device 204 and any associated data”, ¶55, “Contact record 224 can contain a set of data associated with the contact, including, but not limited to: anonymized identification numbers associated with other user devices 204”, ¶56, ¶82, i.e. set of interaction are collected among devices, Fig. 2, ¶51, “Identification 210 can be a unique identifier associated with user device 200 and can be registered with exposure processor/system 222 so that exposure processor 222 can identify user device 200”, ¶55, “content tracking application 212 can store the contact in history storage 214 as contact record 224. Contact record 224 can contain a set of data associated with the contact, including, but not limited to: anonymized identification numbers associated with other user devices 204”, ¶57, “device 200 can upload contact records 224 to storage 220”, Fig. 6 (602, 604), ¶84)
Boss does not teach explicitly,
precomputing ephemeral unique identifiers for each endpoint device; and
storing the precomputed ephemeral unique identifiers for each endpoint device,
However, Ville teaches,
precomputing ephemeral unique identifiers for each endpoint device; (Page – 4, “B: Creating common secret”, Lines (3-11)) and
storing the precomputed ephemeral unique identifiers for each endpoint device, (Page – 4, “C: Recording the RID”, Lines (22-26)).
Regarding Claim 14, rejection of Claim 13 is included and Claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 5 above.
Referring to Claims 6 and 15:
Regarding Claim 6, rejection of Claim 5 is included and for the same motivation Boss teaches,
The method of claim 5, [wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted further comprises, in response to a given interaction matching a given stored precomputed ephemeral] unique identifier (Fig. 2, ¶54, “receives identification 210A or other tokenized information of other user device 204, encryption component 216 can encrypt or anonymize identification 210A of other user device 204 and any associated data”, ¶55, “Contact record 224 can contain a set of data associated with the contact, including, but not limited to: anonymized identification numbers associated with other user devices 204”) [that is associated with a given endpoint device, determining that the corresponding endpoint device interacted with the particular device].
Boss does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 5, [wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted further comprises, in response to a given interaction matching a given stored precomputed] ephemeral unique identifier [that is associated with a given endpoint device, determining that the corresponding endpoint device interacted with the particular device].
However, Ville teaches,
The method of claim 5, [wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted further comprises, in response to a given interaction matching a given stored precomputed] ephemeral unique identifier (Fig. 1, Page 4, Lines (3-11), Page 4, Lines (12-21), “If the two people would meet again, new random values would be in place, making the RID different for each such encounter”, i.e. RID (identifier) is an ephemeral unique identifier) [that is associated with a given endpoint device, determining that the corresponding endpoint device interacted with the particular device].
Combination of Boss and Ville does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 5, wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted further comprises, in response to a given interaction matching a given stored precomputed [ephemeral] unique identifier that is associated with a given endpoint device, determining that the corresponding endpoint device interacted with the particular device.
However, Jayachandran teaches,
The method of claim 5, wherein resolving identities of the plurality endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted further comprises, in response to a given interaction matching a given stored precomputed [ephemeral] unique identifier that is associated with a given endpoint device, determining that the corresponding endpoint device interacted with the particular device. (¶57, “a smart phone-app may exchange random ID numbers with all nearby phones”, “anyone to determine whether they had been near a positive person without revealing the identity of any individuals involved and without the involvement of any trusted party at any point following preparation of the tests”, i.e. identity is resolved based on comparison of unique identifier with stored unique identifies).
Regarding Claim 15, rejection of Claim 14 is included and Claim 15 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 6 above.
Referring to Claims 11, 17 and 20:
Regarding Claim 11, rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation combination of Boss and Ville does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a first user of the particular device was exposed to a second user of another endpoint device based on whether an identity of any of the other endpoint device is among the resolved identities of the plurality of endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted.
However, Jayachandran teaches,
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a first user of the particular device was exposed to a second user of another endpoint device based on whether an identity of any of the other endpoint device is among the resolved identities of the plurality of endpoint devices with which the particular device has interacted. . (¶57, “a smart phone-app may exchange random ID numbers with all nearby phones”, “anyone to determine whether they had been near a positive person without revealing the identity of any individuals involved and without the involvement of any trusted party at any point following preparation of the tests”, i.e. identity is resolved based on comparison of unique identifier with stored unique identifies).
Regarding Claim 17, rejection of Claim 13 is included and Claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 20, rejection of Claim 19 is included and Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 11 above.
Referring to Claims 12 and 18:
Regarding Claim 12, rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Boss does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of endpoint devices are borne by users at a job site, the method further comprising determining, based on a plurality of interactions with endpoint devices having known locations within the job site, at least one of:
one or more patterns of movement of the users at the job site;
analytics regarding frequency of visits by users to each of one or more locations within the job site; or
analytics regarding number of interactions between the users at each of one or more locations within the job site.
However, Ville teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of endpoint devices are borne by users at a job site, the method further comprising determining, based on a plurality of interactions with endpoint devices having known locations within the job site, at least one of:
one or more patterns of movement of the users at the job site;
analytics regarding frequency of visits by users to each of one or more locations within the job site; or (Page - 4, Lines (30-35), “In addition to the RID, some metadata, such as location information or duration of the encounter, can be recorded as metadata”)
analytics regarding number of interactions between the users at each of one or more locations within the job site.
Regarding Claim 18, rejection of Claim 13 is included and Claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 12 above.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2018/0052970, hereinafter “Boss”, provided by the applicant in an IDS), and further in view of Ville et al. (NPL, “VTT Technical Research Center of Finland”, hereinafter “Ville”), and further in view of Jayachandran et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2021/0312078, priority based on provisional application 63/003,810 filed on 04/01/2020), and further in view of Lenon et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2012/0260324, hereinafter “Lenon”).
Referring to Claims 7 and 16:
Regarding Claim 7, rejection of Claim 5 is included and combination of Boss, Ville and Jayachandran does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 5, wherein:
each endpoint device has a corresponding secret key known to a network operator; and
each ephemeral unique identifier is precomputed based at least in part on a corresponding secret key and a counter.
However, Lenon teaches,
The method of claim 5, wherein:
each endpoint device has a corresponding secret key known to a network operator; (¶110-¶111) and
each ephemeral unique identifier is precomputed based at least in part on a corresponding secret key and a counter. (¶115)
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Lenon with the invention of Boss in view of Villie and Jayachandran.
Boss in view of Villie and Jayachandran teaches, collecting interactions between endpoint devices and associating with identifiers of devices and generating an ephemeral identifier and associating with interactions between two devices and resolving identities based on comparison of unique identifier with unique identifiers stored during an interaction. Lenon teaches, each device having a secret key that is known to an authenticating party. Therefore, it would have been obvious for each device having a secret key that is known to an authenticating party of Lenon into the teachings of Boss in view of Ville and Jayachandran to reduce exposure of personal or identifying information to unauthorized devices, while allowing associated users or devices to generate short lived ephemeral identifiers such as one-time passwords by utilizing a secret key and counter.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 16, rejection of Claim 14 is included and Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 7 above.
Claims 8-10: Objected
Claims 8-10 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.
Boss teaches, When low-energy RF component 208 detects low-energy RF component 208A of other user device 204 and receives identification 210A or other tokenized information of other user device 204, encryption component 216 can encrypt or anonymize identification 210A of other user device 204 and any associated data. This, for example, protects an identification of other user 202A and other user device 204. Further, when low-energy RF component 208 detects low-energy RF component 208A of another user device 204 and receives identification 210A of that other user device 204, content tracking application 212 can store the contact in history storage 214 as con