DETAILED ACTION
This office action has been issued in response to communications received on 11/18/2025. Claims 1-9 & 11-14 were amended. New claims 15-16 were added. Claim 10 was cancelled previously. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments filed 11/18/2025
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, filed 11/18/2025, are sufficient to overcome the objection to grammatical informalities in the Specification. Accordingly, the objection to the Specification as in (3) as filed in the Non-Final on 6/18/2025 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 4 and 8 correcting grammatical informalities and clarifying protected content are sufficient to overcome the objection to the aforementioned claims. Accordingly, the objection to claims 4 and 8 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 9 making it independent and adding those limitations it explicitly includes are sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 9. Accordingly, the objection to claim 9 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1-3, 6-7 and 11-14 clarifying how the selection step relates to the generated response and which of the first or second response is selected is sufficient to overcome the rejections of these claims as filed in the rejection of these claims under 35 USC 112 in the Non-Final on 6/18/2025. Accordingly, the 112(b) rejections filed in the Non-Final on 6/18/2025 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Remarks, filed 11/18/2025, regarding the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-16 under 35 USC 103 have been considered, but were found non-persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-16 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because newly added claim limitations requiring “wherein when the first response is selected as the response, the response delay comprises a first response delay after which the first response is sent” require new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
The remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
Objections
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to for the following informalities: the claim limitation “the legacy transmitter” should be “a legacy transmitter” since a legacy transmitter is not mentioned in the parent claims from which these claims depend and has not been previously introduced in these claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because it appears as if the response is selected after it is generated and transmitted. Since claim 5 is a method claim listing the steps in the order in which they occur, it is confusing to have the response be selected after it has been generated and transmitted. It makes it unclear whether the selecting step is referring to a different response or whether the response is amended by this selection later after it is transmitted. To clarify this, Applicant could move the selecting step so that is on the same line as the generating step disclosing “generating a response by selecting one of” or Applicant could amend the selecting step to disclose “wherein generating the response comprises selecting one of a first response and a second response”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khosravi (US 2014/0129827) in view of Cornell (US 2023/0308298).
Regarding claim 1, Khosravi discloses the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A receiver comprising:
a processor circuit (para. [0066]: authentication processor);
a communication receiver circuit, wherein the communication receiver circuit is arranged to receive a challenge from a transmitter (paras. [0065]: processor receives locality check command r.sub.n (i.e. challenge) from the transmitter); and
a communication transmitter circuit, wherein the communication transmitter circuit is arranged to return a response to the transmitter (paras. [0066]: processor returns L’values generated by the authentication processor back to the transmitter),
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive the challenge from the communication receiver circuit, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to generate the response in response to the challenge (para. [0022], [0066], [0077]-[0078]: authentication processor 206 receives r.sub.n. (i.e. challenge) from decryption processor and the authentication processor generates L’ values in response as part of a locality check operation),
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to send the response to the communication transmitter circuit after a response delay (paras. [0066], [0078]: authentication processor returns L’ values back to the processor within a predetermined time period (i.e. response delay)),
Khosravi does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to select one of a first response and a second response as the response to the challenge,
wherein when the first response is selected as the response, the response delay comprises after which the first response is sent,
wherein when the second response is selected as the response, the response delay comprises after which the second response is sent,
wherein the second response delay is longer than the first response delay.
However, in the same field of endeavor Cornell discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to select one of a first response and a second response as the response to the challenge (paras. [0027], [0031], [0036]: selecting a first or second time after a challenge is received (i.e. in response to a challenge) at which to send a response to the challenge (i.e. first or second response) based upon a response delay time indicated in the challenge),
wherein when the first response is selected as the response, the response delay comprises after which the first response is sent (paras. [0027], [0031], [0033], [0036], [0040]: when a first time is selected to send a response to the challenge (i.e. first response), the first delay time is indicative of a time duration that the asset waited (i.e. first response delay) before sending/replying to the challenge message (i.e. after the first response is sent))
wherein when the second response is [[a]] selected as the response, the response delay comprises after which the second response is sent (paras. [0027], [0031], [0033], [0036], [0040]: when a second time is selected to send a response to the challenge (i.e. second response), the second delay time is indicative of a time duration that the asset waited (i.e. second response delay) before sending/replying to the challenge message (i.e. after the first response is sent)),
wherein the second response delay is longer than the first response delay (paras. [0027], [0031], [0033], [0036], [0040]: wherein the time the asset waited to send the second reply to the challenge may be longer than the time the asset waited to send the first reply to the challenge and one or both may be after the required delay time)
Cornell is combinable with Khosravi because both are from the same field of endeavor of verifying validity of access based upon verifying proximity/locality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Cornell’s method of selecting a time to wait to send a reply to a challenge based upon a delay time specified in the challenge with the system of Khosravi in order to increase the security of the system by enabling the system to clearly identify all replies received before the specified delay time as invalid.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Khosravi and Cornell disclose the limitations of the receiver of claim 1, and the method of claim 5.
Cornell discloses the limitations of claims 11 and 13 as follows:
wherein when the first response is selected as the response, the first response is a valid response (paras. [0027], [0031], [0040]-[0041]: when the response to the challenge is received after the specified response delay and determined to be within the valid reply message receive time, the response is determined to be valid)
The same motivation to combine utilized in claims 1/5 is equally applicable in the instant claims.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Khosravi and Cornell disclose the limitations of the receiver of claim 1, and the method of claim 5.
Cornell discloses the limitations of claims 12 and 14 as follows:
wherein when the second response is selected as the response, the second response is an invalid response (paras. [0027], [0031], [0040]-[0041]: when a response is selected to be sent during a time that may be after the required delay but does not fall within the valid reply message receive time span, therefore the response is does not conform and is discarded or blocked (i.e. invalid response))
The same motivation to combine utilized in claims 1/5 is equally applicable in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 5, Khosravi discloses the limitations substantially as follows:
A method comprising:
receiving a challenge from a transmitter (paras. [0065]: processor receives locality check command r.sub.n (i.e. challenge) from the transmitter),
generating a response; transmitting the response to the transmitter after a response delay time (paras. [0066], [0078]: processor returns L’values generated by the authentication processor back to the transmitter within a predetermined time period (i.e. response delay))
controlling the response delay time (paras. [0066], [0078]: time period set within which to respond is predetermined/controlled); and
Khosravi does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 5 as follows:
selecting one of a first response and a second response as the response in response to the challenge,
wherein when the first response is selected as the response, the response delay comprises after which the first response is sent, [[and]]
wherein when the second response is [[a]] selected as the response, the response delay comprises after which the second response is sent,
wherein the second response delay is longer than the first response delay
However, in the same field of endeavor Cornell discloses the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
selecting one of a first response and a second response as the response in response to the challenge (paras. [0027], [0031], [0036]: selecting a first or second time after a challenge is received (i.e. in response to a challenge) at which to send a response to the challenge (i.e. first or second response) based upon a response delay time indicated in the challenge);
wherein when the first response is selected as the response, the response delay comprises after which the first response is sent (paras. [0027], [0031], [0033], [0036], [0040]: when a first time is selected to send a response to the challenge (i.e. first response), the first delay time is indicative of a time duration that the asset waited (i.e. first response delay) before sending/replying to the challenge message (i.e. after the first response is sent))
wherein when the second response is [[a]] selected as the response, the response delay comprises after which the second response is sent (paras. [0027], [0031], [0033], [0036], [0040]: when a second time is selected to send a response to the challenge (i.e. second response), the second delay time is indicative of a time duration that the asset waited (i.e. second response delay) before sending/replying to the challenge message (i.e. after the first response is sent)),
wherein the second response delay is longer than the first response delay (paras. [0027], [0031], [0033], [0036], [0040]: wherein the time the asset waited to send the second reply to the challenge may be longer than the time the asset waited to send the first reply to the challenge and one or both may be after the required delay time)
Cornell is combinable with Khosravi because both are from the same field of endeavor of verifying validity of access based upon verifying proximity/locality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Cornell’s method of selecting a time to wait to send a reply to a challenge based upon a delay time specified in the challenge with the system of Khosravi in order to increase the security of the system by enabling the system to clearly identify all replies received before the specified delay time as invalid.
Regarding claim 9, Khosravi disclose the limitations substantially as follows:
[[The]] A computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the following:
receiving a challenge from a transmitter (paras. [0065]: processor receives locality check command r.sub.n (i.e. challenge) from the transmitter),
generating a response; transmitting the response to the transmitter after a response delay time (paras. [0066], [0078]: processor returns L’values generated by the authentication processor back to the transmitter within a predetermined time period (i.e. response delay))
controlling the response delay time (paras. [0066], [0078]: time period set within which to respond is predetermined/controlled); and
Khosravi does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 9 as follows:
selecting one of a first response and a second response as the response in response to the challenge,
wherein when the first response is selected as the response, the response delay comprises a first response delay after which the first response is sent,
wherein when the second response is selected as the response, the response delay comprises a second response delay after which the second response is sent,
wherein the second response delay is longer than the first response delay
However, in the same field of endeavor Cornell discloses the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
selecting one of a first response and a second response as the response in response to the challenge (paras. [0027], [0031], [0036]: selecting a first or second time after a challenge is received (i.e. in response to a challenge) at which to send a response to the challenge (i.e. first or second response) based upon a response delay time indicated in the challenge);
wherein when the first response is selected as the response, the response delay comprises a first response delay after which the first response is sent (paras. [0027], [0031], [0033], [0036], [0040]: when a first time is selected to send a response to the challenge (i.e. first response), the first delay time is indicative of a time duration that the asset waited (i.e. first response delay) before sending/replying to the challenge message (i.e. after the first response is sent))
wherein when the second response is selected as the response, the response delay comprises a second response delay after which the second response is sent (paras. [0027], [0031], [0033], [0036], [0040]: when a second time is selected to send a response to the challenge (i.e. second response), the second delay time is indicative of a time duration that the asset waited (i.e. second response delay) before sending/replying to the challenge message (i.e. after the first response is sent)),
wherein the second response delay is longer than the first response delay (paras. [0027], [0031], [0033], [0036], [0040]: wherein the time the asset waited to send the second reply to the challenge may be longer than the time the asset waited to send the first reply to the challenge and one or both may be after the required delay time)
Cornell is combinable with Khosravi because both are from the same field of endeavor of verifying validity of access based upon verifying proximity/locality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Cornell’s method of selecting a time to wait to send a reply to a challenge based upon a delay time specified in the challenge with the system of Khosravi in order to increase the security of the system by enabling the system to clearly identify all replies received before the specified delay time as invalid.
Claims 2-4, 6-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khosravi (US 2014/0129827) in view of Cornell (US 2023/0308298), as applied to claims 1 and 5, further in view of Singh (20120127937) (hereafter “Singh ‘937”).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Khosravi and Cornell disclose the limitations of the receiver of claim 1, and the method of claim 5.
Khosravi and Cornell do not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 2 and 6, however in the same field of endeavor, Singh ‘937 discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 6 as follows:
wherein when the second response is selected as the response, the second response delay is greater than of a legacy transmitter (paras. [0019], [0040], [0058], [0063], [0066]: transmission opportunity period including processing delay (i.e. second response delay) is extended beyond said time period according to RTS for legacy devices),
(paras. [0019], [0040], [0058], [0063], [0066]: time delay (i.e. first response delay) is standard set time period (i.e. is equal to) according to RTS for legacy devices for when no extension is necessary).
Singh ‘937 is combinable with Khosravi and Cornell because all are from the same field of endeavor of verifying validity of access based upon verifying proximity/locality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Singh’s method of extending the period longer than the time period set for legacy devices in RTS with the system of Khosravi and Cornell in order to increase the flexibility of the system by enabling the system to continue performing optimally even when processing delays exceed normal expected amounts.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Khosravi, Cornell and Singh ‘937 disclose the limitations of the receiver of claim 1, and the method of claim 5.
Singh discloses the limitations of claims 3 and 7 as follows:
wherein when the second response is selected as the response, the second response delay is chosen from a range of response delays (paras. [0017], [0020], [0022]: where the adjusted locality check period generated/selected varies depending upon the measured delays at each processing layer (i.e. varies across a range of processing delays)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claims 1 and 5 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Khosravi, Cornell and Singh ‘937 disclose the limitations of the receiver of claim 1, and the method of claim 5.
Singh ‘937 discloses the limitations of claims 4 and 8 as follows:
wherein the receiver is arranged to receive protected content from the transmitter, and the of the legacy transmitter determines whether protected content is provided to the receiver (paras. [0019], [0040], [0047], [0058], [0063], [0066], [0069]: RTS and EDCA for legacy devices are used to determine whether to continue to provide protected content over the wireless channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Singh’s method of using time periods determined by legacy systems with the system of Khosravi and Cornell in order to enable the system to be compatible with legacy systems.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Khosravi and Cornell disclose the limitations of the receiver of claim 1, and the method of claim 5.
Khosravi and Cornell do not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 15 and 16, however in the same field of endeavor, Singh ‘937 discloses the limitations of claims 15 and 16 as follows:
Wherein when the first response is selected as the response, the first response delay is less than or equal to the decision criterium of the legacy transmitter (paras. [0019], [0040], [0058], [0063], [0066]: time delay (i.e. first response delay) is standard set time period (i.e. is equal to) according to RTS for legacy devices for when no extension is necessary).
Singh ‘937 is combinable with Khosravi and Cornell because all are from the same field of endeavor of verifying validity of access based upon verifying proximity/locality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Singh’s method of using a standard set time period when no extension is necessary with the system of Khosravi and Cornell in order to increase the flexibility of the system by enabling the system to save time by using the shorter standard time period when an extension is not necessary.
Prior art not relied upon but applied/considered includes:
1) Shen-Orr (US 2007/0300070) sending a proximity challenge from the first device to the second device, the proximity challenge including a numeric challenge value, receiving the proximity challenge at the second device, processing the proximity challenge at the second device to produce the response to the proximity challenge, and sending the response to the proximity challenge from the second device to the first device, receiving the response to the proximity challenge at the first device, and performing the following at the first device verifying, at the first device, that the response to the proximity challenge is legitimate, determining a gross time between sending the proximity challenge and receiving the response to the proximity challenge, subtracting the second device processing delay from the gross time to produce a net response time, and comparing the net response time to a first threshold and determining whether the first device and the second device are in proximity based on a result of the comparing. (paras. [0018]).
Conclusion
For the above reasons, claims 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHARON S LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4583. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARON S LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438