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 .
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 6-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 elements “reading unit”; “first service unit”; and “second service unit”, which are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description only implicitly or inherently sets for the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 7-10 do not cure the deficiency of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for their dependency upon claim 6.
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Camenisch et al. (US 2019/0367239), hereon referred to as Camenisch, in view of Fileccia (US 2023/0147221), and hereon referred to as Fileccia.
In regards to claims 1 & 6, Camenisch discloses decomposing the read parameter to obtain ciphertext data and link data ( the user scans the QR code on a selected test package, whereby verifier computer reads the encrypted product data Enc (Dprod) and the URL from the QR code; Paragraphs 0033-0035; 0045-0050); decrypting the ciphertext data to obtain corresponding first plaintext data (the verifier computer uses the key dk to decrypt the encrypted product data Enc(Dprod), obtained in step for the selected test, to obtain the decrypted product data Dprod containing ProdID, Dsec and the passphrase Pass; Paragraphs 0042-0050); and comparing the first plaintext data with the second plaintext data to generate a verification result, the verification result being verification passed when the first plaintext data and the second plaintext data are the same and verification failed when the first plaintext data and the second plaintext data are different (verifier computer compares this decrypted security data to the security data Dsec obtained. If the decrypted security data matches Dsec for the product (as indicated by decision “Yes” (Y) at decision block ), then the verifier computer deems the product authentic and can display an appropriate message to the user. If the security data Dsec is not verified (“No” (N) at decision ), then verifier computer deems that the product is not authentic, and a warning message is displayed to the user; Paragraphs 0042-0051).
However, Camenisch does not disclose reading a label chip to obtain a read parameter; and
decrypting the link data to obtain corresponding second plaintext data. In an analogous art Fileccia discloses reading a label chip to obtain a read parameter (the item or product may include an NFC tag that may be an NTAG DNA tag and may in combination have a separately printed code to verify ownership; The user may scan or tap the NFC tag on the shoe using their client computing device and the client computing device may send a request to the server computing device; Paragraphs 0025-0030; 0050-0055); and decrypting the link data to obtain corresponding second plaintext data (The encrypted registration code can be decrypted with the same key that is used to generate encrypted data on the tag; Paragraphs 0055-0065).
At the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings disclosed by Camenisch, with the teachings disclosed by Fileccia regarding reading a label chip to obtain a read parameter; and decrypting the link data to obtain corresponding second plaintext data. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide additional security in an NFC anti-counterfeit system (Fileccia; Paragraph 0005).
In regards toc claims 3 & 8, the combination of Camenisch and Fileccia discloses wherein, the first plaintext data comprises first key data, first domain name data and label data, and the second plaintext data comprises second key data and second domain name data (The elements presented in the claim(s) do not contain any additional features, do not present any inventive step or novelty not addressed/presented in the combination of Camenisch and Fileccia. Examiner takes official notice, that these elements are commonly known, minor design details that are derivable from the prior art and are well known, and obvious to an ordinary skill in the art. The additional features of these claims represent normal design options, which the skilled person would implement the combination of Camenisch and Fileccia, depending on the circumstances, without exercising any inventive activity).
In regards to claims 4 & 9, the combination of Camenisch and Fileccia discloses wherein, the step of decrypting the link data to obtain the corresponding second plaintext data comprises: matching the label data of the first plaintext data, obtaining corresponding verification version data, decrypting the link data with the verification version data, and obtaining the second plaintext data (The elements presented in the claim(s) do not contain any additional features, do not present any inventive step or novelty not addressed/presented in the combination of Camenisch and Fileccia. Examiner takes official notice, that these elements are commonly known, minor design details that are derivable from the prior art and are well known, and obvious to an ordinary skill in the art. The additional features of these claims represent normal design options, which the skilled person would implement the combination of Camenisch and Fileccia, depending on the circumstances, without exercising any inventive activity).
In regards to claims 5 & 10, Fileccia discloses wherein, in the step of comparing the first plaintext data with the second plaintext data to generate the verification result, the verification result being verification passed when the first plaintext data and the second plaintext data are the same and verification failed when the first plaintext data and the second plaintext data are different, when the first plaintext data and the second plaintext data are the same, and a request number of a verification request instruction is not less than a read number of the label chip, the verification result is verification passed, and when the first plaintext data and the second plaintext data are different, or the request number is less than the read number, the verification result is verification failed (The secure NFC tag may generate the one time use URL that includes a unique identifier (UID) and a counter that may iterate by one on each read or scan. The UID and counter may be encrypted with a key that is only known to the person or entity that programmed the tag, and the user is only able to see the encrypted string in the URL; Paragraphs 0030-0042).
Claims 2 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Camenisch and Fileccia, in view of Isaacson (US 2008/0133914), hereon referred to as Isaacson.
In regards to claims 2 & 7, the combination of Camenisch and Fileccia does not disclose
comparing the ciphertext data in a cache database, when cache data in the cache database is consistent with the ciphertext data, obtaining the corresponding first plaintext data, when the cache data is inconsistent with the ciphertext data, transmitting the ciphertext data to a decryption server, and obtaining the corresponding first plaintext data through the decryption server. However, in an analogous art Isaacson discloses comparing the ciphertext data in a cache database, when cache data in the cache database is consistent with the ciphertext data, obtaining the corresponding first plaintext data, when the cache data is inconsistent with the ciphertext data, transmitting the ciphertext data to a decryption server, and obtaining the corresponding first plaintext data through the decryption server (A first authentication server decrypts and caches plaintext; other similar requests the server returns the cached plaintext without re-contacting the authentication server; Paragraphs 0043-0047; 0050-0060).
At the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings disclosed by the combination of Camenisch and Fileccia, with the teachings disclosed by Fileccia regarding wherein, comparing the ciphertext data in a cache database, when cache data in the cache database is consistent with the ciphertext data, obtaining the corresponding first plaintext data, when the cache data is inconsistent with the ciphertext data, transmitting the ciphertext data to a decryption server, and obtaining the corresponding first plaintext data through the decryption server. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide additional security by locally caching authentication information (Isaacson; Paragraph 0002).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARIF E ULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-5453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-5:30.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 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 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.
/SHARIF E ULLAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495