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 . Claims 1, 9, 13 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by O’Donoghue (U.S. Publication 2016/0352605), hereinafter ‘O’Donoghue’.
As to claims 1 and 9, O’Donoghue discloses a receiver, and a method comprising: a receiver comprising: (O’Donoghue; FIG. 1-11; Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0044-0045], [0069-0077], [0160-0164]; a receiver)
a processor circuit; (O’Donoghue; FIG. 1-11; Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0160-0164]; a processor)
a communication receiver circuit, wherein the communication receiver circuit is arranged to receive a challenge from a transmitter; and (O’Donoghue; FIG. 1-11; Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0044-0045], [0069-0077], [0160-0164]; a receiver (communication receiver circuit), wherein the receiver is arranged to receive a challenge from a transmitter)
a communication transmitter circuit, wherein the communication transmitter circuit is arranged to return a response to the transmitter, (O’Donoghue; FIG. 1-11; Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0069-0077], [0160-0164]; a transmitter (a communication transmitter circuit), wherein the transmitter is used to transmit a response to the transmitter)
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive the challenge from the communication receiver circuit, (O’Donoghue; FIG. 1-11; Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0069-0077], [0160-0164]; a processor, is used to receive the challenge from the receiver)
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to generate the response, (O’Donoghue; FIG. 1-11; Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0069-0077], [0160-0164], generating the response)
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to send the response to the communication transmitter circuit after a response delay time, (O’Donoghue, FIG. 1-11, Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0031-0032], [0048-0050], [0069-0096], generating the response and delaying sending the response by a processing time multiplier associated with the challenge and sends the response after waiting for that delay)
wherein the response includes at least a first response and a second response, (O’Donoghue, FIG. 1-11, Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0069-0101], [0160-0164], the measuring of a first round trip time for a first response and a second response)
wherein the first response is associated with a first response delay time, (O’Donoghue, FIG. 1-11, Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0069-0101], [0133-0164], the first response includes processing time and associated delay according to a processing time multiplier)
wherein the second response is associated with a second response delay time, (O’Donoghue, FIG. 1-11, Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0069-0101], [0133-0164], the second response includes processing time and associated delay according to a processing time multiplier)
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to control the response delay time, and (O’Donoghue, FIG. 1-11, Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0069-0101], [0133-0164], determining a processing time multiplier from the bounding sequence, applying the multiplier to the delay related response and the multiplier indicates how long the target delays responding)
wherein the first response delay time is different from the second response delay time (O’Donoghue, FIG. 1-11, Background, Summary, Paragraphs [0069-0101], [0133-0164], the verifier sends multiple challenges, processing time multipliers and delays processing).
As to claim 17, O’Donoghue 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. O’Donoghue, see Paragraphs [0160-0164]).
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 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donoghue (U.S. Publication 2016/0352605), hereinafter ‘O’Donoghue’ in view of Cornell (U.S. Publication 2023/0308298), hereinafter ‘Cornell’. As to claims 3 and 11, O’Donoghue discloses everything disclosed in claims 2 and 10, but is silent to wherein the second response delay time differs from the first response delay time by a minimum amount. Cornell discloses 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). 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 O’Donoghue in view of Cornell in order to further modify the method for distance bounding to an authenticated device from the teachings of O’Donoghue with the method of encrypted response timing for presence detection from the teachings of Cornell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow accurate determination of an upper bound on the distance to an authenticated device. (Cornell – Abstract).
As to claims 4 and 12, O’Donoghue discloses everything disclosed in claims 2 and 10, but is silent to wherein the second response delay differs from the first response delay time by a random amount. However, Cornell discloses 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).
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 O’Donoghue in view of Cornell in order to further modify the method for distance bounding to an authenticated device from the teachings of O’Donoghue with the method of encrypted response timing for presence detection from the teachings of Cornell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow accurate determination of an upper bound on the distance to an authenticated device. (Cornell – Abstract).
As to claims 6 and 14, O’Donoghue discloses everything disclosed in claims 2 and 10, but is silent to wherein the response delay time is between a minimum delay time and a maximum delay time. Cornell discloses Cornell discloses 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).
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 O’Donoghue in view of Cornell in order to further modify the method for distance bounding to an authenticated device from the teachings of O’Donoghue with the method of encrypted response timing for presence detection from the teachings of Cornell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow accurate determination of an upper bound on the distance to an authenticated device. (Cornell – Abstract).
As to claims 7 and 15, O’Donoghue discloses everything disclosed in claims 6 and 10, but is silent to wherein the minimum delay time is less than a transmitter maximum response delay time, wherein the transmitter maximum response delay time is imposed by the transmitter. However, Cornell discloses 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).
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 O’Donoghue in view of Cornell in order to further modify the method for distance bounding to an authenticated device from the teachings of O’Donoghue with the method of encrypted response timing for presence detection from the teachings of Cornell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow accurate determination of an upper bound on the distance to an authenticated device. (Cornell – Abstract).
As to claims 8 and 16, O’Donoghue discloses everything disclosed in claims 7 and 15, but is silent to wherein a portion of response delay times is below the transmitter maximum response delay time. However, Cornell discloses 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).
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 O’Donoghue in view of Cornell in order to further modify the method for distance bounding to an authenticated device from the teachings of O’Donoghue with the method of encrypted response timing for presence detection from the teachings of Cornell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow accurate determination of an upper bound on the distance to an authenticated device. (Cornell – Abstract).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donoghue (U.S. Publication 2016/0352605), hereinafter ‘O’Donoghue’, Cornell (U.S. Publication 2023/0308298), hereinafter ‘Cornell’ in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0023455), hereinafter ‘Gupta’.
As to claims 5 and 13, O’Donoghue in view of 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 O’Donoghue in view of Cornell in order to further modify the method for distance bounding to an authenticated device from the teachings of O’Donoghue with 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights