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 .
This action is response to communication: response to amendments/arguments filed on 11/24/2025
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12-14, and 16-20 are currently pending in this application.
The IDS filed on 11/24/2025 has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See amended rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liljestrand US Patent Application Publication 2024/0114025 (Liljestrand) in view of Ellis et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0114264 (Ellis)
As per claim 1, Liljestrand teaches a method of sending data by a first component of an imaging device to a second component of the imaging device, the method comprising: converting, by the first component, indirect data into a feature of communication and causing the communication to occur between the first and second components, wherein the communication is a data line communication (paragraphs 36-40 with digital device behavior DDB; see paragraph 36 with using them for multiple purposes including setting up authentication channels; see paragraph 40 with DDB including timestamp, user input, initialization factors, environmental factors, etc. which are indirect data; paragraph 41 wherein DDB used for purposes such as encryption or authentication; see paragraph 92 for example of communication within a smartphone; see paragraph 76 with example of encrypting and storing information).
Although Liljestrand teaches utilizing indirect data, the reference does not explicitly teach the indirect data indicating functionality to be performed by the second component, wherein the indirect data is converted by establishing a measurable property of the feature of the communication, based on the indirect data, and receiving a response from the second component at the first component, and determining whether the second component is authenticated by using the response and the indirect data to perform an authentication algorithm. This would have been obvious though. For example, see Ellis (paragraph 5 and 20 with authentication procedure that uses indirect data such as current drawn as an authentication parameter; see paragraph 23 with establishing measurable property by sending and measuring response and generating a profile, and paragraph 24 with testing authenticatity by comparing current measured response to profile; see paragraph 62 with comparison algorithm).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lijestrand with Ellis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by overcoming vulnerabilities associated with sending data over a communication bus (paragraph 5 of Ellis).
Claim 10 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
As per claim 12, Liljestrand as modified teaches wherein the functionality to be performed is an algorithm and the imaging device stores a look-up table for setting a property of the algorithm based on the indirect data (obvious over Ellis; see paragraph 56-57 with utilizing table to generate challenge).
As per claim 13, Liljestrand as modified teaches wherein the indirect data is an index into direct data sent in the communication (paragraph 40 with initialization vector for direct data; also see Ellis paragraphs 56-57).
As per claim 14, Liljestrand as modified teaches wherein the indirect data is an intput to a computation to be performed by the supply item and/or component on direct data sent in the communication (paragraph 40 with DDB forming an input string to be run trhough algorithm to generate direct data; also see throughout Ellis such as paragraphs 56-57).
As per claim 18, Liljestrand as modified teaches wherein the imaging device further configured to determine whether the supply item installed in the imaging device is authentic based on i) indirect data received from the supply item, or a response received from the supply item to indirect data sent to the supply item (see paragraph 92 with authentication via responses; see paragraph 94 with verification of parties; see also paragraph 67; see also Ellis paragraph 23-24).
Claim 19 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 9 above.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 10 above. The device of Liljestrand may be interpreted as the supply item; see also abstract with component authentication, which can be used by multiple components; see further paragraph 21 with two different devices/components performing the methods; see further Ellis and throughout)
Claim(s) 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Liljestrand combination as applied above, in view of Brennen et al. US Patent Application Pulbication 2024/0037031 (Brennen)
As per claim 3, the Liljestrand combination does not explicitly teach wherein the property is a number of bytes in the features. However, adjusting the number of bytes would have been obvious. For example, see Brennan (paragraph 52 with dynamically adjusting the number of bytes in communication based on indirect data).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Liljestrand combination with Brennan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to improve performance (paragraph 2).
Claim 16 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 16 above.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Liljestrand combination as applied above, and further in view of Okubo US Patent Application Publication 2013/0185573 (Okubo)
As per claim 4, the Liljestrand combination does not explicitly teach wherein the feature comprises: a first portion having a number of bytes; a check value of the first portion, and a buffer portion. However, this would have been obvious. For example, see Okubo (paragraph 33 with a first portion having a number of bytes, which is a check value; paragraph 33 furtehr teaches preparing/adjusting the size of a buffer).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Liljestrand combination with Okubo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to save power (paragraphs 6-9 of Okubo).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Liljestrand combination as applied above, in view of Fister et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0181665 (Fister)
As per claim 5, Liljestrand as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the property is a number of transmissions in the feature. However, utilizing the number of transmissions as a parameter would have been obvious. For example, see Fister (see abstract, paragraphs 41-46, and throughout with determining authenticatity utilizing clock frequency pattern; frequency is the number of transmissions over time; these paragarphs show the timing between the number of transmissions).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Liljestrand combination with Fister. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by preventing installation of non-authentic slave components (paragraph 8 of Fister).
As per claim 6, Liljestrand as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the property is a time period of the feature. However, this would have been obvious. For example, see Fister (see paragraphs 41-46 with determining authenticity by responses based on the time period between clock signals).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Liljestrand combination with Fister. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security by preventing installation of non-authentic slave components (paragraph 8 of Fister).
As per claim 7, it would have been obvious over the Liljestrand combination wherein the feature comprises sending a first transmission, waiting for the time period and then sending a second transmission (Fister paragraphs 41-46 with varying the timing between two transmissions).
Claim 17 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
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 JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. 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).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495