DETAILED ACTION
This office action has been issued in response to communications received on 4/16/2024 Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings filed 4/16/2024 are acknowledged.
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.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to software per se.
Under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP § 2106.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea as a judicially recognized exception. The claim as a whole recites just one step – transmitting a message via a communication channel. The claimed invention is a method thereof of organizing human activity, which is an abstract idea. The claim recites no additional steps. All the claim does is provide further details on what the message comprises (an identifier of the first channel, an encrypted first authentication value associated with the first device, and at least one encrypted data value). There is NO integration of the method into a practical application, as can be found in the other two independent claims (Claims 1 and 17). The additional elements in claim 12 do not recite a specific improvement over prior art systems, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 13-16 fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim from which they derive and are accordingly similarly rejected. Claims 13-16 disclose further details about how the elements in the message are generated or what they identify, but still does not provide a practical application for the message or any of the elements in the message. Claim 13 discloses generating the identifier of the first channel by applying a non-invertible operation to the identifier; claim 14 discloses that the non-invertible operation is hashing function; claim 15 discloses the first authentication value is based on a unique identifier and/or a random value and claim 16 discloses the first authentication value is generated by a cryptographic operation. To be more specific, claims 13-16 don’t apply any of the elements in the message or the message itself to do anything. Therefore, claims 13-16 are similarly rejected as being directed to the abstract idea and are patent ineligible.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2023/0291798) in view of Smith (US 2019/0349426).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A method comprising:
transmitting, by a first device and through a first communication channel, a message comprising an identifier of the first channel, an encrypted first authentication value associated with the first device, and at least one encrypted data value (paras. [0122]-[0123], [0174]-[0176], [0191]-[0192], [0199] Fig. 11: comprising a destination address for the message (i.e. identifier of the channel), encrypted test data (i.e. encrypted data values) and a sensor hash generated by hashing/encrypting binary sequences output from pre-functions taking as input sensor ID’s location, ID and network addresses of the multimode data transmit unit (MDTU) and/or the destination address for the message (i.e. identifier for communication path/route/channel), where each data transmit unit comprises the address information, the encrypted binary sequence output from the pre-function (i.e. encrypted first authentication value) and a sensor hash of that output);
receiving, by a second device, the message (paras. [0188]: receiving node/sensor (i.e. second device) receives a data transmit unit/message);
decrypting, by a first circuit of the second device, the encrypted first authentication value (paras. [0192], [0199], [0234]: receiving node/sensor decrypts the encrypted payload (i.e. encrypted first authentication value) in the data transmit unit/message);
applying, by the first circuit of the second device, at least one non-invertible operation on the decrypted first authentication value, resulting in a verification value (paras. [0188], [0199]: applying by the receiving node/sensor a hash function to the decrypted pre-function output/payload (i.e. generating verification value));
comparing, by the first circuit of the second device, the verification value (paras. [0188], [0190], [0199]: comparing by the receiving node/sensor the hashed pre-function output to the hash received in the message); and
processing, by the first circuit of the second device, the at least one encrypted data value based on the comparing (paras. [0188], [0190]-[0192], [0199]: decrypting and/or processing by the receiving node the encrypted test data received in the message based upon the results of comparing the hashes).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 1 as follows:
comparing, by the first circuit of the second device, the verification value with the identifier of the first channel; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Smith discloses the remaining limitations of claim 1 as follows:
message comprising an identifier of the first channel (paras. [1696], [1761]: including an encrypted topic in a message, where the topic is a logical title or subject line of the message (i.e. identifier of channel))
comparing, by the first circuit of the second device, the verification value with the identifier of the first channel (paras. [1699]-[1701], [1745], [1757], [1761], Fig. 256: comparing by the router encrypted/hash codes of the topic (i.e. identifier of first channel) with hash codes of topics a subscriber has subscribed to/wishes to receive (i.e. verification value))); and
Wang and Smith are combinable because both are from the same field of endeavor of securely transmitting data over IoT networks compatible with MQTT/publish-subscribe protocols. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Smith’s method of comparing an authentication value with an encrypted name of the channel with the system of Wang in order to increase routing efficiency and increase the security of the system by ensuring that the message received is for the topic subscribed to and that the topic has not been altered or changed.
Regarding claim 2, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 1.
Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the processing of the at least one encrypted data value comprises, in response to the verification value corresponding to the identifier of the first channel (paras. [1699]-[1701], [1745], [1757], [1761], Fig. 256: in response to the encrypted/hash codes of the topic (i.e. identifier of channel) matching hash codes of topics a subscriber has subscribed to/wishes to receive (i.e. verification value))):
decrypting, by the first circuit of the second device, the encrypted data value; and providing the decrypted data value to a second circuit of the second device (Wang, paras. [1761]-[1763]: in response to the receiving node authenticating the data received in the message, the receiving node decrypts encrypted data in the message and provide the decrypted message data to the data transmit unit (i.e. second circuit of second device) in the nodes memory).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 1.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising, before the transmitting of the message by the first device:
generating the identifier of the first channel by a first circuit of the first device, by applying the at least one non-invertible operation to the first authentication value (paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199]: the destination address for the message serves as input to the pre-function, which is an encrypted binary sequence output from the pre-function (i.e. first authentication value) and is further hashed (i.e. applying non-invertible operation) by the first sensor/device (i.e. encrypted destination address identifies the channel path of the message).
Regarding claim 4, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 1.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one non-invertible operation comprises a hashing function (Wang, paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199]: applying hash function to output of pre-function).
Regarding claim 5, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 1.
Smith discloses the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the identifier of the first channel is a name of the first channel (Smith, paras. [1696], [1761]: including an encrypted topic in a message, where the topic is a logical title or subject line of the message (i.e. identifier of channel is title/subject (i.e. name) of message)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Smith’s method of using the topic name as the identifier of the channel with the system of Wang because Wang discloses in Figure 11 & para. [0374] using a publish-subscribe protocol such as MQTT to transmit communications over channels and using the topic name of Smith would increase the security of the system by enabling tailoring treatment of messages based on the security level associated with the topic so that messages with different channel identifiers/topics are treated differently based upon their security level (Smith, para. [1765]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 1.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising generating, by the first device, the first authentication value based on a unique identifier value and/or at least one random value (paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199], [0210], [0224]: output from the pre-function is based on sensor ID’s location, ID and network addresses of the multimode data transmit unit (MDTU) and/or the destination for the message (i.e. unique identifiers) and a pseudo-random number generator used to generate the encryption key).
Regarding claim 7, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 1 and 6.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the generating, by a first circuit of the first device, the first authentication value by applying at least one cryptographic operation to the unique identifier value and/or to the at least one random value (paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199], [0210]-[0211], [0224]: the encrypted binary sequence from the pre-function (i.e. first authentication value) is generated by applying encryption to introduce randomness using to random values and one or more of a sensor ID’s location, ID and network addresses of the multimode data transmit unit (MDTU) and/or the destination for the message (i.e. unique identifiers).
Regarding claim 8, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 6-7.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The method according to claim 7, wherein the at least one cryptographic operation is a second non-invertible operation (paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199]: applying hashing or a non-invertible by the pre-function).
Regarding claim 9, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 1.
Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising suppressing, by the first circuit of the second device, the encrypted or decrypted first authentication value in response to determining, by the comparing, that the verification value does not correspond to the identifier of the first channel (Wang, para. [0192]: discarding/suppressing the encrypted data in response to determining by the comparing that the data in the hash value does not match, including that the network address of the receiving nodes (i.e. identifier of the first channel) do not match)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 1.
Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, by the second device and through a second communication channel, a second message comprising an identifier of the second channel, an encrypted second authentication value associated with the second device, and at least one encrypted second data value (Wang, paras. [0174]-[0176], [0191]-[0192], [0199], [204], [0206] Fig. 11: transmitting, by a first sensor via communication lines/paths, data transmit units/messages comprising a destination address (i.e. identifier of second channel), encrypted test data (i.e. encrypted second data values) and a sensor hash generated by hashing/encrypting binary sequences output from pre-functions taking as input sensor ID’s location, ID and network addresses of the multimode data transmit unit (MDTU) and/or the destination address for the message (i.e. identifier for communication path/route/channel), where each data transmit unit comprises both the encrypted binary sequence output from the pre-function (i.e. encrypted second authentication value) and a sensor hash of that output);
receiving, by another device, the second message (Wang, paras. [0188]: receiving node/sensor (i.e. second device) receives a data transmit unit/message);
decrypting, by a first circuit of the another device, the encrypted second authentication value (Wang, paras. [0192], [0199], [0234]: receiving node/sensor decrypts the encrypted payload (i.e. encrypted first authentication value) in the data transmit unit/message);
applying, by the first circuit of the another device, the at least one non-invertible operation to the decrypted second authentication value, resulting in a second verification value (Wang, paras. [0188], [0199]: applying by the receiving node/sensor a hash function to the decrypted pre-function output/payload (i.e. generating verification value));
comparing, by the first circuit of the another device, the second verification value (Wang, paras. [0188], [0190], [0199]: comparing by the receiving node/sensor the hashed pre-function output to the hash received in the message) with the identifier of the second channel (Smith, paras. [1699]-[1701], [1745], [1757], [1761], Fig. 256: comparing by the router encrypted/hash codes of the topic (i.e. identifier of first channel) with hash codes of topics a subscriber has subscribed to/wishes to receive (i.e. verification value)); and
processing the at least one encrypted second data value based on the comparing (Wang, paras. [0188], [0190]-[0192], [0199]: decrypting and/or processing by the receiving node the encrypted test data received in the message based upon the results of comparing the hashes).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Smith discloses the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
The method according to claim 10, wherein the identifier of the second channel is a name of the second channel (paras. [1696], [1761]: including an encrypted topic in a message, where the topic is a logical title or subject line of the message (i.e. identifier of channel is title/subject (i.e. name) of message)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Smith’s method of using the topic name as the identifier of the channel with the system of Wang because Wang discloses in Figure 11 & para. [0374] using a publish-subscribe protocol such as MQTT to transmit communications over channels and using the topic name of Smith would increase the security of the system by enabling tailoring treatment of messages based on the security level associated with the topic so that messages with different channel identifiers/topics are treated differently based upon their security level (Smith, para. [1765]).
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses the limitations substantially as follows:
A system comprising:
a first device configured to transmit, through a first communication channel, a message comprising an identifier of the first channel, an encrypted first authentication value associated with the first device, and at least one encrypted data value (paras. [0122]-[0123], [0174]-[0176], [0191]-[0192], [0199] Fig. 11: comprising a destination address for the message (i.e. identifier of the channel), encrypted test data (i.e. encrypted data values) and a sensor hash generated by hashing/encrypting binary sequences output from pre-functions taking as input sensor ID’s location, ID and network addresses of the multimode data transmit unit (MDTU) and/or the destination address for the message (i.e. identifier for communication path/route/channel), where each data transmit unit comprises the address information, the encrypted binary sequence output from the pre-function (i.e. encrypted first authentication value) and a sensor hash of that output); and
a second device configured to receive the message transmitted by the first device through the first channel(paras. [0188]: receiving node/sensor (i.e. second device) receives a data transmit unit/message), wherein the second device comprises a first circuit configured to:
decrypt the encrypted first authentication value (paras. [0192], [0199], [0234]: receiving node/sensor decrypts the encrypted payload (i.e. encrypted first authentication value) in the data transmit unit/message);
apply an operation to the decrypted first authentication value, resulting in a verification value (paras. [0188], [0199]: applying by the receiving node/sensor a hash function to the decrypted pre-function output/payload (i.e. generating verification value));
compare the verification value (paras. [0188], [0190], [0199]: comparing by the receiving node/sensor the hashed pre-function output to the hash received in the message); and
process the at least one encrypted data value based on the compare (paras. [0188], [0190]-[0192], [0199]: decrypting and/or processing by the receiving node the encrypted test data received in the message based upon the results of comparing the hashes).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 17 as follows:
compare the verification value with the identifier of the first channel;
However, in the same field of endeavor Smith discloses the remaining limitations of claim 17 as follows:
message comprising an identifier of the first channel (paras. [1696], [1761]: including an encrypted topic in a message, where the topic is a logical title or subject line of the message (i.e. identifier of channel))
compare the verification value with the identifier of the first channel (paras. [1699]-[1701], [1745], [1757], [1761], Fig. 256: comparing by the router encrypted/hash codes of the topic (i.e. identifier of first channel) with hash codes of topics a subscriber has subscribed to/wishes to receive (i.e. verification value)));
Wang and Smith are combinable because both are from the same field of endeavor of securely transmitting data over IoT networks compatible with MQTT/publish-subscribe protocols. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Smith’s method of comparing an authentication value with an encrypted name of the channel with the system of Wang in order to increase routing efficiency and increase the security of the system by ensuring that the message received is for the topic subscribed to and that the topic has not been altered or changed.
Regarding claim 18, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 17.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 18 as follows:
The system according to claim 17, wherein the first circuit of the second device is further configured to generate the identifier of the first channel by applying at least one non-invertible operation to the first authentication value (paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199]: the destination address for the message serves as input to the pre-function, which is an encrypted binary sequence output from the pre-function (i.e. first authentication value) and is further hashed (i.e. applying non-invertible operation) by the first sensor/device (i.e. encrypted destination address identifies the channel path of the message).
Regarding claim 19, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claims 17-18.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 19 as follows:
The system according to claim 18, wherein the second device is further configured to transmit, through a second channel, a second message comprising an identifier of the second channel, an encrypted second authentication value associated with the second device, and at least one encrypted second data value, wherein the identifier of the second channel is a name of the second channel (Wang, paras. [0174]-[0176], [0191]-[0192], [0199], [0204], [0206], Fig. 11: transmitting, by a first sensor via communication lines/paths, data transmit units/messages comprising a destination address for the message (i.e. identifier for the second channel), encrypted test data (i.e. encrypted second data values) and a sensor hash generated by hashing/encrypting binary sequences output from pre-functions taking as input sensor ID’s location, ID and network addresses of the multimode data transmit unit (MDTU) and/or the destination address for the message (i.e. identifier for communication path/route/channel), where each data transmit unit comprises both the encrypted binary sequence output from the pre-function (i.e. encrypted second authentication value) and a sensor hash of that output).
Regarding claim 20, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claims 17-19.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
The system according to claim 19, wherein the second device is further configured to generate the identifier of the second channel by applying the at least one non-invertible operation to the second authentication value (paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199], [0204], [0206]: the destination address for the message serves as input to the pre-function, which is an encrypted binary sequence output from the pre-function (i.e. second authentication value) and is further hashed (i.e. applying non-invertible operation) by the first sensor/device (i.e. encrypted destination address identifies the channel path of the message).
Claims 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2023/0291798).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses the limitation substantially as follows:
A first device comprising:
a transmitter;
a first circuit comprising:
a non-transitory memory storage comprising instructions; and
a processor in communication with the memory storage and the transmitter, wherein the processor executes the instructions to:
transmit, through a first communication channel via the transmitter, a message comprising an identifier of the first channel, an encrypted first authentication value associated with the first device, and at least one encrypted data value (paras. [0122]-[0123], [0174]-[0176], [0191]-[0192], [0199], [0204], [0206], Fig. 11: transmitting, by a first sensor via communication lines/paths, data transmit units/messages comprising a destination address for the message (i.e. identifier of the channel), encrypted test data (i.e. encrypted data values) and a sensor hash generated by hashing/encrypting binary sequences output from pre-functions taking as input sensor ID’s location, ID and network addresses of the multimode data transmit unit (MDTU) and/or the destination address for the message (i.e. identifier for communication path/route/channel), where each data transmit unit comprises the address information, the encrypted binary sequence output from the pre-function (i.e. encrypted first authentication value) and a sensor hash of that output).
Although Wang does not explicitly disclose that the binary sequence output from the pre-function comprises an authentication value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the binary sequence is used as an authentication value because Wang discloses that the output from the pre-function is used to perform conventional authentication of the message (paras. [0188], [0199], [0234]) and using the output from the pre-function to authenticate the message increases the security of the method of Wang by enabling verification that the message was not altered in transit to its recipient.
Regarding claim 13, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claim 12.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The first device according to claim 12, wherein the processor further executes the instructions to generate the identifier of the first channel by applying at least one non-invertible operation to the first authentication value (paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199]: the destination address for the message serves as input to the pre-function, which is an encrypted binary sequence output from the pre-function (i.e. first authentication value) and is further hashed (i.e. applying non-invertible operation) by the first sensor/device (i.e. encrypted destination address identifies the channel path of the message).
Regarding claim 15, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claims 12-13.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
The first device according to claim 13, wherein the processor further executes the instructions to generate the first authentication value based on a unique identifier value and/or at least one random value (paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199], [0210], [0224]: output from the pre-function is based on sensor ID’s location, ID and network addresses of the multimode data transmit unit (MDTU) and/or the destination for the message (i.e. unique identifiers) and a pseudo-random number generator used to generate the encryption key).
Regarding claim 16, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claims 12-13 and 15.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 16 as follows:
The first device according to claim 15, wherein the processor further executes the instructions to generate the first authentication value by applying at least one cryptographic operation to the unique identifier value and/or to the at least one random value (paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199], [0210]-[0211], [0224]: the encrypted binary sequence from the pre-function (i.e. first authentication value) is generated by applying encryption to introduce randomness using to random values and one or more of a sensor ID’s location, ID and network addresses of the multimode data transmit unit (MDTU) and/or the destination for the message (i.e. unique identifiers).
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2023/0291798), as applied to claim 12, further in view of Smith (US 2019/0349426).
Regarding claim 14, Wang and Smith disclose the limitations of claims 12-13.
Wang discloses the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The first device according to claim 13, wherein the at least one non-invertible operation comprises a hashing function (Wang, paras. [0174]-[0176], [0199]: applying hash function to output of pre-function),
Wang does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations of claim 14 as follows:
and wherein the identifier of the first channel is a name of the first channel
However, in the same field of endeavor, Smith discloses the remaining limitations of claim 14 as follows:
and wherein the identifier of the first channel is a name of the first channel (Smith, paras. [1696], [1761]: including an encrypted topic in a message, where the topic is a logical title or subject line of the message (i.e. identifier of channel is title/subject (i.e. name) of message)).
Wang and Smith are combinable because both are from the same field of endeavor of securely transmitting data over IoT networks compatible with MQTT/publish-subscribe protocols. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Smith’s method of using the topic name as the identifier of the channel with the system of Wang because Wang discloses in Figure 11 & para. [0374] using a publish-subscribe protocol such as MQTT to transmit communications over channels and using the topic name of Smith would increase the security of the system by enabling tailoring treatment of messages based on the security level associated with the topic so that messages with different channel identifiers/topics are treated differently based upon their security level (Smith, para. [1765]).
Prior art not relied upon but applied/considered includes:
1) Vargas (US 2023/0065163) teaches a system for transmitting a communication over a link between a computing device and rental server, the communication comprising authentication information such as a customer identifier, encrypted data, the rental data, the payment request or a combination thereof. The communication occurs in accordance with a publish-subscribe protocol such as MQTT and data in the communication is protected with a MAC operation equal to an amount of random data (paras. [0049], [0055], [0070], [0180]-[0181]).
Conclusion
For the above reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON S LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4583. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. 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). 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.
/SHARON S LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438