DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to claims 1-20 filed December 18, 2023 for examination. Claims 1-20 are being examined and are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/02/2024 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/18/2023 have been accepted.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160050563 A1 to Bronk et al. (“Bronk”) in view of US 20150350820 A1 to SON et al. (“SON”).
Regarding claim 1, Bronk disclosed a method implemented by a power receiver for authentication with a power transmitter ([0021] To begin authentication of receiver node 103 to transmitter node 102, node 102 and/or node 103 establishes (element 120) a communication channel 112 (e.g., bi-directional communication channel) between each other.), the method comprising: selecting, by the power receiver, a beacon (“a group ID” in para. 0030) from an encryption scheme (Para. 0021, “The channel 112 may be embedded in the charging protocol itself.” Para. 0023, “…the mobile receiver node device 103 receives a list of valid EPID groups (element 121) allowed to charge at a given station (e.g., station 102).”); encrypting, by the power receiver, the beacon to generate an encrypted beacon signal (Para. 0030, “[0030] At element 130, node 103 signs a message (e.g., a message containing text representation of a group ID) with its EPID private key,”); transmitting, by the power receiver, the encrypted beacon signal to the power transmitter to cause the authentication with the power transmitter (Para. 0030. “…signs a message (e.g., a message containing text representation of a group ID) with its EPID private key, and sends the message…from node 107, to the power transmitter 102. Transmitter node 102 checks validity of the EPID signature at element 131, wherein authentication is achieved or denied.”); and receiving, by the power receiver, power from the power transmitter after the authentication (Para.0032, “At element 133, if the EPID signature from node 103 is valid the receiver node 103 is considered authenticated and the transmitter 102 starts transmitting power to node 103.”).
Bronk taught transmitting signed message with a private key i.e. symmetric encryption, however, the analogous art SON explicitly taught encrypt and transmit a beacon signal, such that the degree of encryption may be changed according to the encryption level (Para. 0311), the processor may encrypt the beacon signal (Para. 0332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the invention of Bronk by including the idea of encrypting the beacon signa as taught by SON so that the beacon signal may be encrypted to be a beacon signal which a particular person is allowed to receive (Para. 0349).
Regarding claim 11, Bronk disclosed a method implemented by a power transmitter for authentication of a power receiver ([0021] To begin authentication of receiver node 103 to transmitter node 102, node 102 and/or node 103 establishes (element 120) a communication channel 112 (e.g., bi-directional communication channel) between each other.), the method comprising: receiving, by the power transmitter, an encrypted beacon signal (“signed message” in para. 0030) comprising a beacon (“a group ID” in para. 0030) selected according to an encryption scheme (list of valid EPID groups, para. 0023); ([0030] At element 130, node 103 signs a message (e.g., a message containing text representation of a group ID) with its EPID private key, and sends the message, along with OCSP response(s) from node 107, to the power transmitter 102.); performing, by the power transmitter, the authentication of the power receiver by determining the beacon to the encryption scheme (Para. 0030. Transmitter node 102 checks validity of the EPID signature at element 131, wherein authentication is achieved or denied.); and transmitting, by the power transmitter, power to the power receiver after the authentication ([0032] At element 133, if the EPID signature from node 103 is valid the receiver node 103 is considered authenticated and the transmitter 102 starts transmitting power to node 103).
Bronk taught transmitting signed message with a private key i.e. symmetric encryption, however, the analogous art SON explicitly taught encrypt and transmit a beacon signal, such that the degree of encryption may be changed according to the encryption level (Para. 0311), the processor may encrypt the beacon signal (Para. 0332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the invention of Bronk by including the idea of encrypting the beacon signal as taught by SON so that the beacon signal may be encrypted to be a beacon signal which a particular person is allowed to receive (Para. 0349).
Regarding claim 2. Bronk-SON combination further taught the method of claim 1, wherein the encryption scheme is predetermined between the power transmitter and the power receiver (Bronk, Para.0023, SON, Para. 0332).
Claim 12 recites similar limitations to claim 2, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 12, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Bronk-SON combination as above.
Regarding claim 3, Bronk-SON combination further taught the method of claim 1, wherein the encryption scheme is a zero-knowledge proof (Bronk, Para. 0037).
Claim 13 recites similar limitations to claim 3, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 13, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Bronk-SON combination as above.
Regarding claim 6, Bronk further taught the method of claim 1, wherein the power is received on a same antenna that transmitted the encrypted beacon signal (Para. 0021-0023).
Claim 16 recites similar limitations to claim 6, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 16, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Bronk-SON combination as above.
Regarding claim 7, Bronk-SON combination further taught the method of claim 1, wherein the encryption scheme is an agreed encryption mechanism prior to transmitting the encrypted beacon signal (Bronk, 0023, SON, 0326).
Claim 17 recites similar limitations to claim 7, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim17, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Bronk-SON combination as above.
Regarding claim 9, Bronk-SON combination further taught the method of claim 1, wherein the encrypted beacon signal comprise a data payload and the beacon (Bronk, Para. 0030, SON, Para. 0332).
Claim 19 recites similar limitations to claim 9, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 19, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Bronk-SON combination as above.
Claims 4, 14, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronk et al. in view of SON and in further view of US 20200296780 A1 to Zeine et al. (“Zeine”) Pub. Sep 17, 2020.
Regarding claim 4, Bronk-SON combination taught the method of claim 1, the combination did not but the analogous art Zeine explicitly taught wherein the beacon is selected from a plurality of unique and different beacons (Zeine, Para. 0052-0053, 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the combined invention of Bronk and SON by including the idea of the beacon is selected from a plurality of unique and different beacons as taught by Zeine so that the wireless power delivery system can identify the location(s) of the interference sources, e.g., unauthorized transmitters, and avoids locking onto those interference sources…the charger can track the locations of the interference sources to ensure that they are not confused with authorized transmitters. (Zeine, Para. 0060).
Claim 14 recites similar limitations to claim 4, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 14, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Bronk-SON-Zeine combination as above.
Regarding claim 10, Bronk-SON-Zeine combination further taught the method of claim 1, wherein the beacon prevents spoofing (Bronk, 0027, 0030, Zeine, Para. 0060).
Claim 20 recites similar limitations to claim 10, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 20, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Bronk-SON-Zeine combination as above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronk et al. in view of SON and in further view of US 20030072450 A1 to Maggenti et al. (“Maggenti”).
Regarding claim 5, Bronk-SON combination taught the method of claim 1 including private key encryption (Para. 0023), the combination did not but the analogous art Maggenti explicitly taught wherein the encrypted beacon signal comprises the beacon encrypted by a public key of a public-private key pair (Para. 33, 35-36, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the combined invention of Bronk and SON by including the idea of the encrypted beacon signal comprises the beacon encrypted by a public key of a public-private key pair as taught by Maggenti in order to provide privacy (Maggenti, Para. 0010).
Claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 5, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 15, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Bronk-SON-Maggenti combination as above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronk et al. in view of SON and in further view of US 20230048229 A1 to LIU et al. (“LIU”).
Regarding claim 8, Bronk-SON taught the method of claim 1, the combination was silent but the analogous art LIU taught wherein the beacon comprising at least two of three or more large prime numbers of the encryption scheme (LIU, Para. 0023, 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the combined invention of Bronk and SON by including the idea of the beacon comprising at least two of three or more large prime numbers of the encryption scheme as taught by LIU for the advantages of the advantages of strong universality, safety and high efficiency, privacy protection (LIU, 0079).
Claim 18 recites similar limitations to claim 8, mutatis mutandis, the subject matter of claim 18, which is therefore, also considered to be taught by Bronk-SON-LIU combination as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2023187305 A1 taught an encrypted beacon signal transmitted by a device 100 in response to, for example, the device 100 establishing a connection with the home or office WLAN may replace the use of such credentials or act as a second authentication factor (since when, for example, a hash type encryption is used, only an encrypted data packet received in the beacon signal of a legitimate user will be decryptable using the previously agreed secret decryption key).
US 20150289133 taught [0024] In some implementations, the beacon 102 may preset N types of encryption methods. N is a natural number greater than 1. The beacon 102 may map the current time to M using a predetermined mapping algorithm and designate an encryption method corresponding to M as the determined encryption method. M is a nature number, greater than or equal to 1, and less than N. In some implementations, the server 108 may present N types decryption methods corresponding to the N types of encryption methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWNCHOY RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7471. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30A-5P ET.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached at 5712723787. 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.
/Shawnchoy Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438