DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
On response filed on 1/22/2026, claims 33, 40 and 47-52 were amended; claims no claims were/remain cancelled; no new claims were added. Thus claims 33-52 are pending of which claims 33, 40, 47 are in independent form.
Amendment to claims 33, 40 and 47 obviates previous claim rejection to claims 33, 40 and 47 under 35 USC section 112(b).
Amendment to claims 47-52 obviates previous claim rejection to claims 47-52 under 35 USC section 101.
Response to Arguments
Remarks on pages 8-9 filed on 1/22/2026 have been considered carefully and respectfully but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
IDS
References cited in the IDS filed on 10/25/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 33-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehrmann (WO 2017/053048 A1), in view of Medvinsky et al. (US 2017/0126402 A1) hereinafter Medvinsky.
As to claim 33, Gehrmann teaches a device control method, comprising: receiving, by a first device, second information from the third device, wherein the second information indicates that the first device is to be bound to the third device; using, by the first device, the second information to bind the first device to the third device (see para. [0039]-[0215]);
determining, by the first device, whether the second device has received the first control key, and: establishing, by the second device, a session with the first device based on the first control key (see para. [0039]-[0215]); and
disconnecting the first device from the second device when the first device determines that the second device has not received the first control key (see para. [0039]-[0215]).
Gehrmann does not explicitly teach but Medvinsky teaches “periodically sending, by the first device, first information to a second device, the first information instructing the second device to obtain a first control key that is the latest control key” (see para. [0017]-[0019]; para. [0017] A second version includes the same steps to securely provide a Master Key update as version 1, except the secure session is not necessary to deliver the New Master Key to each device. Instead, the New Master Key is encrypted and authenticated directly with the DPK without the need for such a secure session. [0018] The third version also includes the same steps to securely provide a Master Key update as version 1, except that the update to the new Master Key is broadcast encrypted with the initial or current Master Key. Devices that happened to be off-line during the broadcast for a change to the new Master Key use their DPK to establish a secure session with the Commissioner to request the New Master key, as the initial Master Key will have been replaced. [0019] The fourth version includes the same steps to securely provide a Master Key update as version 3, except that the New Master Key is directly encrypted and authenticated with the DPK instead of first establishing a secure session.; The examiner notes that the commissioner is responsible for generating and providing an updated new device key to a device in IoT network.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gehrman and Medvinksky before him or her, to modify the scheme of Gehrman by including Medvinsky. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable securely replace a new master key to devices in an IoT network so that only authorized devices own updated key for secure communication.
As to claims 40 and 47, claims 40 and 47 include similar limitations as claim 33, and thus claims 40 and 47 are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 33.
As to claims 34, 41, and 48, in view of claims 33, 40 and 47, respectively, Gehrmann teaches wherein the using the second information to bind the first device to the third device comprises: determining, by the first device based on the second information, that a correspondence with the first device is not established; and establishing, by the first device, a first correspondence between the first device and the third device (see para. [0039]-[0215]) .
As to claim 35, 42, and 49, in view of claim 34, 41, and 48, respectively, Gehrmann teaches wherein the second information comprises an identifier of the first device, an identifier of a first user, and a second control key, wherein the first user is a user corresponding to the third device, the correspondence with the first device is a correspondence between the identifier of the first device and an identifier of a user, the first correspondence is a correspondence between the identifier of the first device and the identifier of the first user, and the third devices uses the second control key to establish a session with the first device (see para. [0039]-[0215]).
As to claims 36, 43, and 50, in view of claims 33, 40, and 47, respectively, Gehrmann teaches further comprising: receiving, by the first device, third information from the second device; and requesting, by the second device, to control the first device (see para. [0039]-[0215]).
As to claims 37, 44, and 51, in view of claims 36, 43, and 50, respectively, Gehrmann teaches wherein the third information comprises an identifier of a second user and the identifier of the first device, and the second user is a user corresponding to the second device (see para. [0039]-[0215]).
As to claim 38, 45, and 52, in view of claims 33, 40, and 47, respectively, Gehrmann teaches wherein the first information comprises a check value, and the method further comprises using the check value to determine the first control key (see para. [0039]-[0215]).
As to claims 39, 46, in view of claims 38, and 45, respectively, Gehrmann teaches further comprising: determining the first control key based on the check value, a second control key, and an identifier of a second user; and using the second control key by the third device to establish a session with the first device, and the second user is a user corresponding to the second device (see para. [0039]-[0215]).
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 HEE K SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3260. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7291.
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.
/HEE K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights