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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Referencing the published application US 2025/0286734, remove the repeated “disables access” from paragraph [0019]. Applicant is requested to review the published application in its entirety, to find any other discrepancies that may have been inadvertently added/introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Status of the claims
Claims 8 and 13 were canceled; New claims 21-22 were introduced; claims 1 – 7, 9-12, 14-22 are pending.
Double Patenting
The remarks filed on 12/15/2026 with respect to the Double Patenting rejection in view of the amendments to the claims are persuasive, and the Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments to the claim 3, 35 USC 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The remarks with respect to the amended claims 1, 16 and 19, are not persuasive and Examiner maintains the prior art rejection. Examiner does not agree with the characterization of the prior art Stapleton where the prior art discloses “a certificate, including public key, is used to authenticate the user/subscriber device (computing device), relying party (electronic device) and access control via authentication of the Object Identifier (OID), to provide access or deny access to the computing system”. Examiner directs the Applicant’s attention to Stapleton for specific teachings of “store a representation of a security key hierarchy comprising a hierarchical arrangements of keys including a public key of an access device” and “receive a certificate sent from the access device that is connected to the electronic device, the certificate signed with a private key of the access device and comprising a feature control information element that provides access of a control of an electronic device feature of the electronic device, the certificate issued by a certificate authority, wherein the electronic device feature of the electronic device is initially blocked from access, (Background Public Key Infrastructure, a hierarchical key management), Column 2 liens 60 - 65)”; “retrieve, from the representation of the security key hierarchy in the memory, the public key of the access device” and “validate the certificate using the public key of the access device retrieved from the representation of the security key hierarchy in the memory (Column 2 lines 50 – 55; Column 3 lines 5 – 18 and Column 4 lines 15 – 27)“ as claimed in the independent claim 1. Independent claims 16 and 19 are similarly rejected over Stapleton.
Examiner had reached out to the Applicant’s representatives in order to expedite the prosecution of the Application and to help improving the pending claims, in particular claims 7, 18 and 21, via Examiner’s proposed amendments, however, Mr. Milan Patel (Reg. No: 62768) informed the Examiner to post the action for further consideration.
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 5-7, 10-11, 17-18 and 21-22 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 5-7, 11, 17-18 and 21-22 recite “control information element being set to a specified value”, without defining what that specified value corresponds to, the limitation “wherein the feature control information element is set to a different value” does not clearly explain how that “different value” gets compared/established. Instant Specification does not disclose nor support what the “specified value” pertains to and Examiner suggests amending these claims with the subject matter disclosed in the instant Specification, e.g., para [0019-0020; 0045; 0054-0056; 0067], to establish what the specified value defines and to clearly claim the instant invention.
As such, these claims 5-7, 11, 17-18 and 21-22 are not considered for the prior art rejection as it is not clear what the broadly claimed limitation of “specified value” mean and when amendments are filed to overcome 35 USC 112 rejection, claims 5-7, 11, 17-18 and 21-22 recite will further get scrutinized on their own individual merit along with their dependency on the parent’s claims respectively.
As per claim 10, the amended limitation “the electronic device to bind the security key hierarchy to the electronic device”, does not define what/how the “bind” is accomplished. Examiner suggests amending these claims with the subject matter disclosed in the instant Specification, e.g., para [0013, 0018 and/or 0072] to clarify the process and procedure for binding the security key hierarchy to the electronic device. For prior art rejection purposes, Examiner broadly interprets “the electronic device to bind the security key hierarchy to the electronic device”, as storing a security key in the electronic device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 9, 10, 12, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent 12,231,584 (issued to Stapleton).
As per claim 1, Stapleton teaches “a memory to store a representation of a security key hierarchy comprising a hierarchical arrangement of keys including a public key of an access device” (Column 2 lines 60 – 65);
“receive a certificate sent from the access device that is connected to the electronic device, the certificate signed with a private key of the access device and comprising a feature control information element that provides access control of an electronic device feature of the electronic device, the certificate issued by a certificate authority, wherein the electronic device feature of the electronic device is initially blocked from access (Summary; Column 2 lines 50 – 55);
retrieve, from the representation of the security key hierarchy in the memory, the public key of the access device (Column 3 lines 5 – 18);
validate the certificate using the public key of the access device retrieved from the representation of the security key hierarchy in the memory; and responsive to the validation of the certificate, enable access to the electronic device feature by the access device based on the feature control information element in the certificate” (Column 2 lines 50 – 55; Column 3 lines 5 – 18 and Column 4 lines 15 – 27).
As per claim 2, Stapleton further teaches “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the feature control information element is part of an object identifier (OID) in the certificate” (Column 4 lines 30 – 37).
As per claim 3, Stapleton teaches claim 1 and 2, as detailed above and further teaches “The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the OID comprises metadata, the metadata comprising the feature control information element settable to different values to indicate whether the electronic device feature is accessible, the different values comprising a first value and a second value, and wherein the feature control information element when set to the first value indicates that the access to the electronic device feature is disabled, and the feature control information element when set to the second value indicates that access to the electronic device feature is enabled” (Column 2 lines 33-44; Column 4 lines 30 – 37 and Column 6 lines 21 – 30).
As per claim 4, Stapleton further teaches “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device feature remains blocked from access in an absence of a valid certificate” (Column 9 lines 25 – 38).
As per claim 9, Stapleton further teaches “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the security key hierarchy comprises a public key infrastructure (PKI) tree” (Column 4 lines 28 – 34).
As per claim 10, Stapleton further teaches “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the security key hierarchy is set up in the memory of the electronic device to bind the security key hierarchy to the electronic device” (Column 4 lines 28 – 53).
As per claim 12, Stapleton further teaches “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the hierarchical arrangement of keys comprises nodes associated with respective entities, the entities comprising the electronic device and access device” (Column 5 lines 25 – 40 and Column 7 lines 43 – 50).
As per claim 14, Stapleton further teaches “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the certificate comprises expiry information indicating when the certificate expires” (Column 13 lines 1 – 21).
As per claim 15, Stapleton further teaches “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the controller is to: receive a message containing a timestamp, the message signed with the private key of the access device; and use the message as part of validating the certificate” (Column 13 lines 34 – 44).
As per claim 16, Stapleton teaches “send, from the access device to a certificate authority, an access request associated with accessing a target electronic device to which the access device is connected; receive, at the access device from the certificate authority, a certificate as a response to the access request, the certificate comprising a feature control information element that provides access control of an electronic device feature of the target electronic device (Summary; Column 2 lines 50 – 55 and Column 4 lines 15 – 27);
sign the certificate using a private key of the access device; send the signed certificate to a controller in the target electronic device; and receive, at the access device from the target electronic device, an indication of whether access to the electronic device feature is granted based on a validation of the signed certificate by the target electronic device using a public key of the access device retrieved from a representation of a security key hierarchy in a memory of the target electronic device” (Column 2 lines 50 – 55; Column 3 lines 5 – 18 and Column 4 lines 28 – 34).
As per claim 19, Stapleton teaches “storing, in a memory of an electronic device, a representation of a security key hierarchy comprising a hierarchical arrangement of keys including a public key of an access device”;
“receiving, at a controller in the electronic device, a certificate sent from the access device that is connected to the electronic device, the certificate signed with a private key of the access device and comprising a feature control information element that provides access control of an electronic device feature in the electronic device, the certificate issued by a certificate authority, wherein the electronic device feature of the electronic device is initially blocked from access, and wherein the electronic device further comprises a host processor, separate from the controller, to execute primary machine-readable instructions of the electronic device (Summary; Column 2 lines 50 – 55);
retrieving, by the controller from the representation of the security key hierarchy in the memory, the public key of the access device; validating, by the controller, the certificate using the public key of the access device retrieved from the representation of the security key hierarchy in the memory Column 2 lines 50 – 55; Column 3 lines 5 – 18); and
based on a validation of the certificate, enabling access to the electronic device feature by the access device based on the feature control information element in the certificate” (Column 4 lines 15 – 34 and Column 6 lines 21 – 36).
As per claim 20, Stapleton further teaches “The method of claim 19, wherein the certificate comprises an X.509 certificate, and the feature control information element is in an object identifier (OID) of the X.509 certificate” (Column 4 lines 30 – 37).
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 PRAMILA PARTHASARATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7AM - 2PM 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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/PRAMILA PARTHASARATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409