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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims Status
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "The computer program stored on a non-transitory medium…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Cornell (U.S. Publication 2023/0308298), hereinafter ‘Cornel’.
As to claims 1 and 9, Cornell discloses a receiver, and a method comprising: a processor circuit (Cornell, see [0025], processor);
a communication receiver circuit, wherein the communication receiver circuit is arranged to receive a challenge from a transmitter (Cornell, see [0027-0028], transmitted challenge message is received), and
a communication transmitter circuit, wherein the communication transmitter circuit is arranged to return a response to the transmitter (Cornell, see [0158] and fig. 6, receiving the reply message at a reply message receive time), and
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive the challenge from the communication receiver circuit (Cornell, see [0027-0028], transmitted challenge message is received), wherein the processor circuit is arranged to generate the response (Cornell, see [0025-0029] challenge response is obtained, wherein order to obtain a challenge response, the challenge response must had been generated), wherein the processor circuits is arranged to send the response to the communication transmitted circuit after a response delay time (Cornell, see [0033], the challenge response delay can specify a time duration to wait after some known time, wherein the challenge message transmit time and/or the challenge message receive time), wherein the processor circuit is arranged to control the response delay time (Cornell, see [0036], the challenge response delay can specify a time for the second asset to wait after receiving the challenge message, and/or the reply message transmit time can be established to conform to the challenge response delay). As to claims 2 and 10, Cornell discloses everything disclosed in claims 1 and 9, wherein a first response is associated with a first response delay (Cornell, see [0027], the challenge message can include a challenge response delay, wherein the challenge response delay can be indicative of a time duration that the second asset must wait before replying to the challenge message. See [0180], the challenge response delay can be specified by the first asset), wherein a second response is associated with a second response delay time (Cornell, see [0029], obtaining a reply response delay from the reply message. See [0180], the reply message can include a reply response delay, wherein the reply response delay can be by the second asset), wherein the first response delay time is different from the second response delay times (Cornell, see [0191], challenge response delay include challenge response delay which can also include a challenge message transmit time corresponding to the point in time at which the challenge message is partially and/or completely transmitted (i.e., each challenge message includes a challenge response delay)). As to claims 3 and 11, Cornell discloses everything disclosed in claims 2 and 10, wherein the second response delay time differs from the first response delay time by a minimum amount (Cornell, see [0043-0044], challenge response delay is based on distance (i.e., zero meters) (minimum amount) between assets). As to claims 4 and 12, Cornell discloses everything disclosed in claims 2 and 10, wherein the second response delay differs from the first response delay time by a random amount (Cornell, see [0136], response delay can be determined as random for each transmission).
As to claims 6 and 14, Cornell discloses everything disclosed in claims 2 and 10, wherein the response delay time is between a minimum delay time and a maximum delay time (Cornell, see [0043-0044], challenge response delay is based on distance (i.e., zero meters and/or 100 meters) (minimum and/or maximum amount) between assets). As to claims 7 and 15, Cornell discloses everything disclosed in claims 6 and 10, wherein the minimum delay time is less than a transmitter maximum response delay time (Cornell, see [0043-0044], challenge response delay is based on distance (i.e., zero meters) (minimum amount) between assets), wherein the transmitter maximum response delay time is imposed by the transmitter (Cornell, see [0043-0044], challenge response delay is based on distance (i.e., 100 meters) (maximum amount) between assets).
As to claims 8 and 16, Cornell discloses everything disclosed in claims 7 and 15, wherein a portion of response delay times is below the transmitter maximum response delay time (Cornell, see [0055], the confirmation message receive time is within the valid confirmation message receive time span). As to claim 17, Cornell discloses a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method as claimed in claim 9 (Please see the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above. Cornell, see [0006] and [0026], the computing system can store computer-readable instructions).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornell (U.S. Publication 2023/0308298), hereinafter ‘Cornel’ in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0023455), hereinafter ‘Gupta’.
As to claims 5 and 13, Cornell discloses everything disclosed in claims 4 and 10, but is silent to wherein a distribution of response delay times is a Gaussian distribution. However, Gupta discloses wherein a distribution of response delay times is a Gaussian distribution (Gupta, see [0014] and [0054], a response delay time is determined based on the load metric, which can determine a delay interval. See [0058-0061], Gaussian distribution is used within the delay time interval). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cornell in view of Gupta in order to further modify the method of encrypted response timing for presence detection from the teachings of Cornell with the method for receiving a request message at a local node in a communications network from a remote node in the communication network from the teachings of Gupta.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow for a less busy node will respond earlier in time to a request message in order to provide a particular service (Gupta – Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. This includes: U.S. Publication 2023/0099296, which describes challenge-response authentication. U.S. Publication 2010/0191962, which describes file system filter authentication. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA M PENA-SANTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-0627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at 5712723889. 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.
/TANIA M PENA-SANTANA/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
/NICHOLAS R TAYLOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2443