DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on January 02nd, 2026.
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.
In the instant Amendment, claims 1-4, 6 & 8-21 have been amended; claims 1, 8 & 9 are independent; and claim 22 has been added. Claims 1-22 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 12/17/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lewis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Power et al. (Power), U.S. Patent Number 10,313,339, in view of Lewis et al. (Lewis), U.S. Patent Number 11,233,791.
Regarding claim 1; Power discloses a device verification system comprising:
a plurality of devices (col. 3, lines 22-25; authentication devices.); and
a communication device (col. 3, lines 22-25; a device management service.),
wherein each of the plurality of devices comprises a security device, a hash value of a component (col. 19, lines 55-57; a hash of the set of credentials.) and a program generated at a time of activation of each of the devices are stored in the security device (col. 20, line 10; activation period for the authentication device.),
wherein the communication device comprises:
a memory storing instructions (col. 23, lines 56-57; random access memory storing instructions.); and
at least one processor (col. 23, line 58; a processor of the server.) configured to execute the instructions to:
perform verification of authenticity of each of the plurality of devices at the time of activation in accordance with the hash value stored in the security device (col. 19, line 59 – col. 20, line 9; the delivery verification service determines whether the activation period for the specified authentication device has expired; for instance, the delivery verification service utilizes the specified identifier for the authentication device to identify the activation period for the authentication device.).
Power fails to explicitly disclose wherein the communication device is connected to a first verification device, and the first verification device is connected to a second verification device, wherein the communication device comprises at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to output a result of the verification to the second verification device through the first verification device, via another communication device connected to the first verification device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses methods, systems, and media for authentication of user devices to a display device wherein the communication device (Lewis: col. 3, line 11; a display device.) is connected to a first verification device (Lewis: col. 3, line 11; a first user device.), and the first verification device is connected to a second verification device (Lewis: col. 3, lines 18-19; a second user device in proximity to the first user device.), wherein the communication device comprises at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to output a result of the verification to the second verification device through the first verification device, via another communication device connected to the first verification device (Lewis: col. 3, lines 19-29; transmitting from the first user device to the second user device, an invitation message to authenticate the second user device to the display device, the authentication token that causes the second user device to request authentication to the display device from the server in response to receiving a response to the invitation message from the second user device; the second user device is provided with media playback control on the display device in response to authenticating with the display device.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lewis into the delivery verification service of Power wherein the communication device is connected to a first verification device, and the first verification device is connected to a second verification device, wherein the communication device comprises at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to output a result of the verification to the second verification device through the first verification device, via another communication device connected to the first verification device to authenticate user devices to a display device (Lewis: col. 1, lines 38-39).
Regarding claim 2; Power and Lewis disclose the device verification system according to claim 1, wherein Power further discloses the security device comprises a storage area having tamper resistance (Power: col. 4, line 66 – col. 5, line 5; the display of unique password may be pursuant to tamper-proof circuitry that may be included in the authentication device 108; for instance, if an entity attempts to modify the authentication device 108, such as re-writing one or more executable instructions stored within the authentication device 108, the authentication device 108 may no longer display unique passwords or one-time passwords.).
Regarding claim 3; Power and Lewis disclose the device verification system according to claim 1, wherein Power further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: verify authenticity at the time of activation of a device by comparing the hash value with a hash expected value stored in advance (Power: col. 17, lines 17-21; the delivery verification service may compare a signature provided in the delivery notification against the intended recipient’s known signature to determine whether the signature in the delivery notification corresponds to the intended recipient.).
Regarding claim 4; Power and Lewis disclose the device verification system according to claim 1, wherein Power further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: in a case where there is a device in which it is determined that there is no authenticity, generate a notification indicating there is an abnormality in the device (Power: col. 17, lines 21-29; the delivery verification service may evaluate other information specified in the delivery notification to determine whether the authentication device was delivered to an authorized recipient; for instance, if the authentication device was delivered to an address that is different from the one or more addresses on record for the authorized recipient, the delivery verification service may determine that the authentication device was not delivered to the authorized recipient.).
Regarding claim 5; Power and Lewis disclose the device verification system according to claim 1, wherein Power further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: invalidate an attribute certificate of a device in which it is determined that there is no authenticity to stop communication with the device in which it is determined that there is no authenticity (Power: col. 17, lines 34-50; the delivery verification service may transmit a notification to a device management service to cause the device management service to transmit a disabling signal to the authentication device; in response to receiving the disabling signal from the device management service, the authentication device may become disabled, preventing unauthorized use of the authentication device; the delivery verification service may transmit a request to the delivery courier or to the delivery service that dispatched the delivery courier to retrieve the authentication device from the unauthorized recipient that received the authentication device; the delivery verification service notifies the authorized recipient that the authentication device has been delivered to an authentication device; the delivery verification service notifies the authorized recipient that the authentication device has been delivered to an authorized entity and that it has been disabled; this may enabled the authorized recipient to notify the organization to request a new authentication device.).
Regarding claim 6; Power and Lewis disclose the device verification system according to claim 1, wherein Power further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: in a case where there is a device in which it is determined that there is no authenticity, transmit a notification indicating there is an abnormality in the device to the second verification device via the first verification device (Power: col. 17, lines 53-55; the delivery verification service may transmit a notification to a device management service to indicate that activation of the authentication device is permitted.).
Regarding claim 7; Power and Lewis disclose the device verification system according to claim 1, wherein Power further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: monitor a network of the device verification system when an application is executed; and verify whether the network is abnormal in accordance with a difference from an operation pattern at a normal time of the device verification system (Power: col. 20, lines 26-30; if the activation period has not expired and the recipient is deemed to be an authorized recipient of the authentication device, the delivery verification service may transmit a notification to the device management service to indicate that activation of the authentication is permitted; this may cause the device management service to transmit an activation signal to the authentication device.).
Regarding claim 8; Claim 8 is directed to a device verification method which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9; Claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory recording medium which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 10-15; Claims 10-15 are directed to the device verification method according to claim 8 which have similar scope as claims 2-7. Therefore, claims 10-15 remain un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 16-21; Claims 16-21 are directed to the non-transitory recording medium according to claim 9 which has similar scope as claims 2-7. Therefore, claims 16-21 remain un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22; Power and Lewis disclose the device verification system according to claim 1, Lewis further discloses the device verification system is a system that controls equipment of a vehicle, a ship, or an aircraft, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: output a result of the verification to the second verification device through the first verification device, via the communication device of another vehicle, ship, or aircraft connected to the first verification device (Lewis: col. 3, lines 19-29 & col. 6, lines 22-23; transmitting from the first user device to the second user device, an invitation message to authenticate the second user device to the display device, the authentication token that causes the second user device to request authentication to the display device from the server in response to receiving a response to the invitation message from the second user device; the second user device is provided with media playback control on the display device in response to authenticating with the display device; a vehicle (e.g., a car, a boat, an airplane).).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOI V LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5087. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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.
/KHOI V LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights