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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 6 and 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 313 (see paragraph 0073), 1 (see paragraph 0077), and 2 (see paragraph 0082). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because they include informalities. In Figure 3, the terms “supplementary”, “encapsulation”, “encryption”, and “counterfeiting” should not include line breaks in the middle of words. In Figure 3, it appears that the arrows next to steps 306, 307, and 308 should be pointing in the opposite direction. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes minor grammatical informalities. For example, the first sentence is a fragment. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification includes minor grammatical and other errors. For example, in paragraph 0004, lines 1-3, the sentence beginning “However” is a run-on (noting the comma splice before “relevant code”. In paragraph 0028, line 4, it is not clear what the subject of the verb “is generally generated” is intended to be.
Appropriate correction is required. The above is not intended as an exhaustive list of errors in the specification. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the terms Android and iOS, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, it appears that the line break between lines 8-9 (between the words “first” and “open”) should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 recites a computer program product, which constitutes software per se. Although the claim recites that the product is stored in a storage medium and is executed by at least one processor, neither the medium nor the processor are recited as elements of the claimed product. Therefore, the claim only requires software per se. Computer software does not fall within any of the statutory classes of invention. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 72, 175 USPQ 673, 676-77 (1972). Software does not constitute a statutory process, because the software itself is not a series of steps that are performed. Software is also not a machine, article, or composition of matter. When a claim encompasses both statutory and non-statutory subject matter, the claim as a whole is considered to be directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106(II).
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites a “device identifier counterfeiting prevention method” in line 1. However, it is not clear how the method would result in prevention of counterfeiting. The claim further recites “a request for querying for an open anonymous device identifier” in line 3. It is not clear how the identifier is to be queried or what it means to query for an identifier. It appears that this may be intended to simply be a request for the identifier. The claim additionally recites “a trusted application program” in line 5. It is not clear by whom or by what the program is trusted. The claim also recites “a trusted execution environment” in line 5. It is not clear whether this environment is in the electronic device or where this environment is located. The claim further recites “reporting the first open anonymous device identifier to a server” in line 10. It is not clear what the step of “reporting” would require as to whether this merely requires transmission of the identifier or additional functionality. The claim additionally recites “the server can identify authenticity” in lines 10-11. It is not clear whether this is intended to be a step of the method or merely a non-limiting capability of the server. The claim also recites “the public key matches the private key” in line 12. If the public key is the same as the private key, then this would not be proper asymmetric encryption because the public and private keys must be different. It appears that this may be intended to recite that the public key corresponds to the private key or similar. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “The method according to claim 1, after the reporting” in line 1. It is not grammatically clear how the phrase “after the reporting” relates to the method. The claim further recites “the authenticity identification result is counterfeit” in line 5. It is not clear whether the result itself would be counterfeit or whether the result indicates a counterfeit identifier. The claim further recites “generating a log file and/or stopping providing an application program service” in lines 5-6. The use of “and/or” makes it unclear whether both are required or if they are merely alternatives.
Claim 4 recites a “device identifier counterfeiting prevention method” in line 1. However, it is not clear how the method would result in prevention of counterfeiting. The claim further recites “a first open anonymous device identifier reported by an electronic device” in line 3. It is not clear what the identifier being “reported” would require as to whether this merely requires transmission of the identifier or additional functionality. The claim additionally recites “the first signature is obtained after the electronic device encrypts an initial open anonymous identifier” in lines 5-6. First, it is not clear whether the obtaining is intended to be a separate step of the method. Further, the tense of the verb “encrypts” makes the timing of the encryption unclear in context. The claim also recites “identifying authenticity of the first open anonymous device identifier by using a public key” in lines 7-8. It is not clear what operation is intended by “identifying authenticity”, although it appears that this is likely intended to refer to signature verification. The claim further recites “the public key matches the private key” in lines 8-9. If the public key is the same as the private key, then this would not be proper asymmetric encryption because the public and private keys must be different. It appears that this may be intended to recite that the public key corresponds to the private key or similar. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “The method according to claim 4, after the generating” in line 1. It is not grammatically clear how the phrase “after the generating” relates to the method. The claim further recites “the authenticity identification result of the first open anonymous identifier is genuine” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether the result itself would be genuine or whether the result indicates a genuine identifier.
Claim 6 recites “the program or the instructions… causes” in lines 2-3. The verb “causes” does not agree with the plural subject. The claim further recites “a request for querying for an open anonymous device identifier” in line 4. It is not clear how the identifier is to be queried or what it means to query for an identifier. It appears that this may be intended to simply be a request for the identifier. The claim additionally recites “a trusted application program” in line 6. It is not clear by whom or by what the program is trusted. The claim also recites “a trusted execution environment” in line 6. It is not clear whether this environment is in the electronic device or where this environment is located. The claim further recites “reporting the first open anonymous device identifier to a server” in line 11. It is not clear what the step of “reporting” would require as to whether this merely requires transmission of the identifier or additional functionality. The claim additionally recites “the server can identify authenticity” in lines 11-12. It is not clear whether this is intended to be a step of the method or merely a non-limiting capability of the server. The claim also recites “the public key matches the private key” in line 13. If the public key is the same as the private key, then this would not be proper asymmetric encryption because the public and private keys must be different. It appears that this may be intended to recite that the public key corresponds to the private key or similar. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “the program or the instructions… causes” in lines 2-3. The verb “causes” does not agree with the plural subject.
Claim 8 recites “the program or the instructions… causes” in lines 2-3. The verb “causes” does not agree with the plural subject. The claim further recites “the authenticity identification result is counterfeit” in line 6. It is not clear whether the result itself would be counterfeit or whether the result indicates a counterfeit identifier. The claim additionally recites “generating a log file and/or stopping providing an application program service” in lines 6-7. The use of “and/or” makes it unclear whether both are required or if they are merely alternatives.
Claim 9 recites “the program or the instructions… causes” in lines 2-3. The verb “causes” does not agree with the plural subject.
Claim 10 recites “the program or the instructions… causes” in lines 2-3. The verb “causes” does not agree with the plural subject. The claim further recites “the authenticity identification result of the first open anonymous identifier is genuine” in lines 4-5. It is not clear whether the result itself would be genuine or whether the result indicates a genuine identifier.
Claim 11 recites “the program or the instructions… causes” in lines 2-3. The verb “causes” does not agree with the plural subject.
Claim 12 recites “the program or the instructions… causes” in lines 2-3. The verb “causes” does not agree with the plural subject.
Claim 13 recites “the program or the instructions… causes” in lines 2-3. The verb “causes” does not agree with the plural subject. The claim further recites “the authenticity identification result is counterfeit” in line 7. It is not clear whether the result itself would be counterfeit or whether the result indicates a counterfeit identifier. The claim additionally recites “generating a log file and/or stopping providing an application program service” in lines 7-8. The use of “and/or” makes it unclear whether both are required or if they are merely alternatives.
Claim 14 recites “the program or the instructions… causes” in lines 2-3. The verb “causes” does not agree with the plural subject.
Claim 15 recites “the program or the instructions… causes” in lines 2-3. The verb “causes” does not agree with the plural subject. The claim further recites “the authenticity identification result of the first open anonymous identifier is genuine” in lines 4-5. It is not clear whether the result itself would be genuine or whether the result indicates a genuine identifier.
Claim 16 recites “the processor is configured to run a program or instructions to implement the steps of the device identifier counterfeiting prevention method according to claim 1” in lines 2-4. It is not clear whether the program or instructions are part of the claimed chip.
Claim 18 recites “the authenticity identification result is counterfeit” in line 6. It is not clear whether the result itself would be counterfeit or whether the result indicates a counterfeit identifier. The claim additionally recites “generating a log file and/or stopping providing an application program service” in lines 6-7. The use of “and/or” makes it unclear whether both are required or if they are merely alternatives.
Claim 19 recites “the processor is configured to run a program or instructions to implement the steps of the device identifier counterfeiting prevention method according to claim 4” in lines 2-4. It is not clear whether the program or instructions are part of the claimed chip.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 recites “the processor is configured to run a program or instructions to implement the steps of the device identifier counterfeiting prevention method according to claim 1”. However, Claim 16 does not clearly include all of the limitations of Claim 1 because the chip does not clearly include the program or instructions.
Claim 19 recites “the processor is configured to run a program or instructions to implement the steps of the device identifier counterfeiting prevention method according to claim 4”. However, Claim 19 does not clearly include all of the limitations of Claim 4 because the chip does not clearly include the program or instructions.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan, Chinese publication CN111598573A (cited by Applicant).
In reference to Claim 1, Yan discloses a method that includes an electronic device obtaining an initial open anonymous device identifier in response to a request (paragraphs 0010, 0016, 0052, and 0055; see also step S101); running a trusted application program that encrypts the initial open anonymous device identifier using a private key to obtain a first signature (paragraphs 0016, 0053-0054; see also step S102); generating a first open anonymous device identifier based on the initial identifier and the first signature (paragraph 0056; step S103); and reporting the first identifier to a server that can verify authenticity of the first identifier using a public key corresponding to the private key (paragraphs 0058-0059; step S104).
In reference to Claim 2, Yan further discloses returning the first identifier to the target application and reporting it to the server (paragraphs 0058-0059).
In reference to Claim 3, Yan further discloses receiving an authenticity identification result returned by the server and generating a log file or stopping an application program service if the identifier is counterfeit (see paragraph 0103).
In reference to Claim 4, Yan discloses a method that includes a server receiving a first open anonymous device identifier from an electronic device, where the first identifier includes a first signature obtained by encrypting an initial open anonymous device identifier using a private key (paragraphs 0091-0092, step S201; see also paragraphs 0016, 0053-0054, generating signature); and verifying authenticity of the first identifier using a public key corresponding to the private key to generate an authenticity identification result and returning the result to the electronic device (paragraphs 0093-0103, steps S202-204).
In reference to Claim 5, Yan further discloses saving the first identifier in a database if the identifier is genuine (see paragraph 0103).
Claims 6-8 are directed to devices having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 1-3, and Claims 9 and 10 are directed to servers having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 4 and 5, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 11-15 are directed to software implementations of the methods of Claims 1-5, and are rejected by a similar rationale.
Claims 16-19 are directed to chips having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 1-4, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 is directed to a software implementation of the method of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Unagami et al, US Patent 9898620, discloses a system that generates a certificate including a signature on an identifier.
Wang, US Patent 10713311, discloses a system that generates an anonymous device identifier.
Jacobs et al, US Patent 11177955, discloses a protocol that generates a signature for a device identity.
Blonchek, US Patent Application Publication 2012/0089518, discloses a system that uses a device identification and digital signature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492