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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on or reply to the remarks of 9/29/2025. The instant application has claims 1-3,5,8,10-13 and 15-36 pending. The device, method and medium for verifying the hash based on locality of device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 51 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 & Fig. 5 has elements with only numbers, it should include the name of the element. 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 disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Page 2 contains links to Wikipedia articles.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains the curly brackets with two elements, it customary to merely list the elements without curly brackets. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
The claim mentions an program that is stored on an medium that implements an method of claim 1. Thus, it is unclear whether it is an method claim or an medium claim. The applicant is advised to modify the claim to be independent claim with appropriate fees being paid for excess of three allowed independent claim or cancel this 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.
Claim 11 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. The claim recites an program that implements an method of claim 1, but the medium can also include other programs thus leading to broadening the scope of dependent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, , 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10666642 to Antonyraj in view US Patent Pub 2012/0096564 to Li.
Regarding claim 1, 11-12, Anthonyraj discloses A method comprising: {first device; transmitter} obtaining a secret; capturing a visual representation(Abstract & Col 4 Ln 18-63, the QR code for pairing and authentication) ;extracting a hash from the visual representation, wherein the hash is generated by an irreversible encryption, wherein the hash is based on the secret(Col 4 LN 18-37, the public key is coded into QR code); generating a verification value, wherein the verification value is generated by the irreversible encryption, wherein the verification value is based on the secret(Col 8 Ln 11-36, the password-less login using QR code).
Anthonyraj does not disclose comparing the verification value and the hash, wherein if the verification value matches the hash then the second device is in the locality of the first device.
In the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Li discloses comparing the verification value and the hash, wherein if the verification value matches the hash then the second device is in the locality of the first device(Abstract & Fig. 1 & Fig. 5 item 570, 520 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Anthonyraj invention to incorporate comparing the verification value and the hash, wherein if the verification value matches the hash then the second device is in the locality of the first device for the advantage of verifying the integrity of data as taught in Li se Par. 0068.
Regarding claim 8, 28, The combined method/device of Anthonyraj and Li, mutatis mutandis, Anthonyraj discloses of claim 1 further comprising:detecting the presence or absence of a watermark in the visual representation(Col 6 Ln 32-62, QR code is added as watermark); determining that the second device is not within the locality of the first device if the watermark is not detected in the visual representation(Col 6 Ln 32-62, QR-code is added as watermark); and extracting the hash from the watermark if the watermark is detected(Col 6 LN 50-62, the QR-code is presented).
Regarding claim 10, 29, The combined method/device of Anthonyraj and Li, mutatis mutandis, Anthonyraj discloses of claim 1, further comprising:establishing a communication link between a first device and a second device when the second device is in the locality of the first device(Fig. 2B, the pairing based on approval); and preventing establishment of a communication link between the first device and the second device when the second device is not in the locality of the first device(Fig. 2A-2 & Col 6 LN 50-62).
Claim(s) 2-3, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10666642 to Antonyraj in view US Patent Pub 2012/0096564 to Li.as applied to claims 1, 12, above, and further in view of US Patent Pub 2003/0120939 to Hughes.
Regarding claim 2, 25, Anthonyraj nor Li disclose the timestamps for verification. However, Hughes discloses the method of The method of wherein the the hash is based on the secret and a second device timestamp value (T2),wherein the generating of the verification value comprises:generating a first device timestamp value (Ti)( Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Par., 0022-0025, the timestamps are compared for verification); and generating the verification value based on the secret and the first device timestamp value (Ti)(Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Par., 0022-0025, the timestamps are compared for verification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Anthonyraj invention to incorporate timestamps for verification for the advantage of time values that are hashed together to form an signature for verification as taught in Hughes see Par. 0022 & Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 3, 26, , Anthonyraj nor Li disclose the timestamps for verification. However, Hughes discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising rounding at least one of the first timestamp value and the second timestamp value according to a target accuracy value. (Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 & Par. 0024-0025, the timestamps are compared for verification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Anthonyraj invention to incorporate timestamps for verification for the advantage of time values that are hashed together to form an signature for verification as taught in Hughes see Par. 0022 & Fig. 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Venkat Perungavoor whose telephone number is (571)272-7213. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on 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.
/VENKAT PERUNGAVOOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492 Email: venkatanarayan.perungavoor@uspto.gov
1 As noted in the Restriction Requirement of 7/8/2025 that claim 2 + claim 5 would lead to allowance of instant application. This Non-Final reiterates the same position and is consistent with the previous statement.