DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/16/2025.
Election was made without traverse, group 1 claims 1-7 and 12-14 were elected.
Claims 1-7 and 12-14 are pending.
Claims 1-7 and 12-14 are rejected.
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 recite the feature “enabling the server to decrypt” this feature recites intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Functional recitation(s) have been considered but given less patentable weight because they fail to add any steps and are thereby regarded as intended use language. A positive recitation of the limitations is required in order to be given patentable weight.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving and timestamping data, performing mathematical processes on the data and transmitting the data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements, display terminal, server, device, ect. are generic computing components, fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring data, applying a timestamp, and sending data are well-understood, routine and conventional, encrypting/decrypting and cyclic redundancy checks are mathematical concepts, and in addition, in a simple form can be performed by pen and paper and in the human mind. Dependent claims 2, 4-7 and 13-14 are also rejected for failing to integrate the abstract idea into practical application
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12 is 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 12 depends on withdrawn claim 8. 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 § 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.
The term “symmetric encryption algorithm” in claim 7 is unclear. “symmetric key encryption” also known as single-key or shared-key encryption, is a cryptographic method where the same key is used for both encryption and decryption of data, however, a “public/private key pair” is recited in reference to the “symmetric encryption algorithm”. It is unclear if Applicant intended “symmetric encryption algorithm” to instead be an “asymmetric encryption algorithm”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinney (U.S. 20160352524), in view of Lin (U.S. 20170012978).
Regarding claim 1,
Kinney discloses: A method for verifying a display terminal, applied to the display terminal, the method comprising:
acquiring a device code of the display terminal and a first current time node, and generating first timestamp data based on the first current time node; (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches a user device obtaining and sending a device identifier and a timestamp to the server; [0027, 0060] teaches the user device can be a display device)
performing cyclic redundancy check (CRC) on the first timestamp data and the device code to obtain a first data check code, and encrypting the device code, the first timestamp data, and the first data check code to obtain first encrypted data; and (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches generating the encrypted signature may include calculating a keyed-hash message authentication code (“HMAC”) using the token code, the device identifier, and the timestamp in combination with the signature key)
sending the first encrypted data via a (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches encrypting the signature and transmitting the encrypted signature to the server where it is then decrypted and verified using the hash)
While Kinney discloses a network and network devices, Kinney does not explicitly disclose: first terminal device
However, in the same field of endeavor Lin discloses: first terminal device (Lin [Abstract, Fig. 1, 0005-0007, 0072, 0093-0114] A security proxy device is arranged between a client and a server; after receiving data returned by the server to the client, the security proxy device assigns a token to the client, and sends the token, the data returned by the server to the client and an execution module to the client; receives a request which the execution module running at the client uses the token to send, verifies the token, and forwards the request to the server if the validation succeeds. The present invention improves security of communication between the client and the server, and can protect the server from various automated attacks)
Kinney and Lin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of secure communication and device authentication.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kinney and Lin before him or her, to modify the method of Kinney to include the Security Proxy Device of Lin because after receiving data returned by the server to the client, the security proxy device assigns a token to the client, and sends the token, the data returned by the server to the client and an execution module to the client; receives a request which the execution module running at the client uses the token to send, verifies the token, and forwards the request to the server if the validation succeeds)
The motivation for doing so would be [“improves security of communication between the client and the server, and can protect the server from various automated attacks.”] (Paragraph Lin by Abstract)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kinney and Lin to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 12 discloses: A system for verifying a display terminal, comprising:
a display terminal to be verified, configured to perform acts comprising: (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches a user device obtaining and sending a device identifier and a timestamp to the server; [0027, 0060] teaches the user device can be a display device)
acquiring a device code of the display terminal and a first current time node, and(Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches a user device obtaining and sending a device identifier and a timestamp to the server; [0027, 0060] teaches the user device can be a display device)
generating first timestamp data based on the first current time node; (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches a user device obtaining and sending a device identifier and a timestamp to the server; [0027, 0060] teaches the user device can be a display device)
performing cyclic redundancy check (CRC) on the first timestamp data and the device code to obtain a first data check code, and encrypting the device code, the first timestamp data, and the first data check code to obtain first encrypted data; and (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches a user device obtaining and sending a device identifier and a timestamp to the server; [0027, 0060] teaches the user device can be a display device)
sending the first encrypted data via a (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches encrypting the signature and transmitting the encrypted signature to the server where it is then decrypted and verified using the hash)
the (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches encrypting the signature and transmitting the encrypted signature to the server where it is then decrypted and verified using the hash)
the server, connected to the (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches encrypting the signature and transmitting the encrypted signature to the server where it is then decrypted and verified using the hash)
wherein the
While Kinney discloses a network and network devices, Kinney does not explicitly disclose: first terminal device
However, in the same field of endeavor Lin discloses: first terminal device (Lin [Abstract, Fig. 1, 0005-0007, 0072, 0093-0114] A security proxy device is arranged between a client and a server; after receiving data returned by the server to the client, the security proxy device assigns a token to the client, and sends the token, the data returned by the server to the client and an execution module to the client; receives a request which the execution module running at the client uses the token to send, verifies the token, and forwards the request to the server if the validation succeeds. The present invention improves security of communication between the client and the server, and can protect the server from various automated attacks)
Regarding claim 2,
Kinney in view of Hwang discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein acquiring the device code of the display terminal and the first current time node comprises:
receiving an authenticity verification instruction sent by the (Kinney [0027-0031, 0051-0060] teaches the authentication system may be communicatively coupled to a user device 104 via a network 106, such as the Internet including a network interface 108 which receives authentication instructions)
in response to the authenticity verification instruction, acquiring the device code from an encoding storage unit of the display terminal, and acquiring the first current time node from a real-time clock chip of the display terminal. (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021-0031, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches a user device obtaining and sending a device identifier and a timestamp to the server, which happens in response to the instructions being executed; The system may retrieve stored copies of the token code and the device identifier from a database; The timestamp may correspond to the time the request is transmitted to the system)
While Kinney discloses a network and network devices, Kinney does not explicitly disclose: first terminal device
However, in the same field of endeavor Lin discloses: first terminal device (Lin [Abstract, Fig. 1, 0005-0007, 0072, 0093-0114] A security proxy device is arranged between a client and a server; after receiving data returned by the server to the client, the security proxy device assigns a token to the client, and sends the token, the data returned by the server to the client and an execution module to the client; receives a request which the execution module running at the client uses the token to send, verifies the token, and forwards the request to the server if the validation succeeds. The present invention improves security of communication between the client and the server, and can protect the server from various automated attacks)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Lin for similar reasons as cited in claim 1.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinney (U.S. 20170012978), in view of Lin (U.S. 20160352524) and in further view of Yang (U.S. 20200082370).
Regarding claim 3,
Kinney in view of Lin discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein receiving the authenticity verification instruction sent by the
establishing a communication connection between the display terminal and the (Kinney [0026-0031, 0041-0049, 0052-0058] teaches a user generating and transmitting a signal in response to a user selecting a selection option on a user interface generated by the processor corresponding to a request to register a device)
receiving the authenticity verification instruction that is sent, via the preset communication interface, by the (Kinney [0026-0031, 0041-0049, 0052-0058] teaches a server receiving a user generated and transmitted a signal in response to a user selecting a selection option on a user interface generated by the processor corresponding to a request to register a device)
While Kinney discloses a network and network devices, Kinney does not explicitly disclose: first terminal device
However, in the same field of endeavor Lin discloses: first terminal device (Lin [Abstract, Fig. 1, 0005-0007, 0072, 0093-0114] A security proxy device is arranged between a client and a server; after receiving data returned by the server to the client, the security proxy device assigns a token to the client, and sends the token, the data returned by the server to the client and an execution module to the client; receives a request which the execution module running at the client uses the token to send, verifies the token, and forwards the request to the server if the validation succeeds. The present invention improves security of communication between the client and the server, and can protect the server from various automated attacks)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Lin for similar reasons as cited in claim 1.
Kinney in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose: receiving instruction in response to a touch operation
However, in the same field of endeavor Yang discloses: receiving instruction in response to a touch operation (Yang [0042, 0143] when a specified input (e.g., a touch input, or a hold input for a specified time or more) is received for one of the displayed program information, the electronic device may determine that the selection input for the program associated with the specified input is received.
Kinney and Lin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of secure communication and device authentication.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kinney in view of Lin and Yang before him or her, to modify the method of Kinney in view of Lin to include the touch operation of Yang because it will allow for touch related input.
The motivation for doing so would be [“ the display device 160 may include touch circuitry adapted to detect a touch, or sensor circuitry (e.g., a pressure sensor) adapted to measure the intensity of force incurred by the touch.”] (Paragraph 0042 by Yang)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kinney in view of Lin and Yang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5,
Kinney in view of Lin discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein encrypting the device code, the first timestamp data, and the first data check code to obtain the first encrypted data comprises:
arranging the device code, the first timestamp data, and the first data check code according to a preset arrangement rule to obtain first to-be-encrypted data, and encrypting the first to-be-encrypted data based on a preset encryption algorithm to obtain the first encrypted data. (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060, 0072-0077, 0152-0156] teaches arranging the codes in a specific order and encrypting them)
Regarding claim 13,
Kinney in view of Lin discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the method of claim 1 (Kinney [0008] In some aspects, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code executable by a processor of an authentication system to cause the processor to receive a request signature from a user device via a network)
Regarding claim 14,
Kinney in view of Lin discloses: An electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing instructions executable for the processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform the method of claim 1 (Kinney [0004] In some aspects, a device authentication system may include a processor that is communicatively connectable to a user device via a network. The device authentication system may also include a memory that is accessible to the processor. The memory may include instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to receive a request signature from the user device via the network)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinney (U.S. 20160352524), in view of Lin (U.S. 20170012978) and in further view of Lei (U.S. 20210219296)
Regarding claim 4,
Kinney in view of Lin discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein performing CRC on the first timestamp data and the device code to obtain the first data check code comprises:
Kinney in view of Lin discloses the first timestamp data and the device code (Kinney [0004-0009, 0021, 0040-0050, 0051-0060] teaches generating the encrypted signature may include calculating a keyed-hash message authentication code (“HMAC”) using the token code, the device identifier, and the timestamp in combination with the signature key)
Kinney in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose: converting… into binary to obtain a first byte code, and calculating a first byte length of the first byte code;
calculating a byte difference between the first byte length and a preset byte length, and determining a second byte length of a padding character required for the first byte code based on the byte difference;
filling the padding character with the second byte length to a preset position of the first byte code to obtain a first to-be-calculated code; and
obtaining the first data check code by performing calculation based on a preset generator polynomial and the first to-be-calculated code.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lei discloses: converting… into binary to obtain a first byte code, and calculating a first byte length of the first byte code; (Lei [0052-0069, 0081-0114] teaches converting data into binary and determining a first byte length)
calculating a byte difference between the first byte length and a preset byte length, and determining a second byte length of a padding character required for the first byte code based on the byte difference; (Lei [0052-0069, 0081-0114] teaches determining a byte difference between two byte lengths and in response determining a padding requirement)
filling the padding character with the second byte length to a preset position of the first byte code to obtain a first to-be-calculated code; and (Lei [0052-0069, 0081-0114] teaches that the padding can be the length of the second byte and the “position” can be preset)
obtaining the first data check code by performing calculation based on a preset generator polynomial and the first to-be-calculated code. (Lei [0052-0069, 0081-0114] teaches using the generated bits to obtain information to perform CRC including a first data check code)
Kinney in view of Lin and Lei are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor performing CRC.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kinney in view of Lin and Lei before him or her, to modify the method of Kinney in view of Lin to include the method of Lei because it will allow CRC to be performed.
The motivation for doing so would be [“ provide a technical solution for codebook reduction”] (Paragraph 0012 by Lei)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kinney in view of Lin and Lei to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinney (U.S. 20160352524), in view of Lin (U.S. 20170012978) and in further view of Shalev (U.S. 10742555)
Regarding claim 6,
Kinney in view of Lin discloses: The method of claim 5, wherein arranging the device code, the first timestamp data, and the first data check code according to the preset arrangement rule to obtain the first to-be-encrypted data comprises:
Kinney in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose: splitting the device code to obtain a plurality of separate codes each corresponding to a separate character; and
obtaining the first to-be-encrypted data by inserting each timestamp byte included in the first timestamp data into a middle position between two adjacent separate codes of the plurality of separate codes in a single-spaced or multi-spaced manner, and placing the first data check code after the last separate code.
However, in the same field of endeavor BBB discloses: splitting the device code to obtain a plurality of separate codes each corresponding to a separate character; and (Shalev [Fig. 1, Col 2 line 45- Col 3 line 25, Col 7 line 4 – Col 8 line 43] teaches splitting code into segments and embedding a timestamp between the segments)
obtaining the first to-be-encrypted data by inserting each timestamp byte included in the first timestamp data into a middle position between two adjacent separate codes of the plurality of separate codes in a single-spaced or multi-spaced manner, and placing the first data check code after the last separate code. (Shalev [Fig. 1, Col 2 line 45- Col 3 line 25, Col 7 line 4 – Col 8 line 43] teaches splitting code into segments and embedding a timestamp between the segments)
Kinney in view of Lin and Shalev are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor checksums.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kinney in view of Lin and Shalev before him or her, to modify the method of Kinney in view of Lin to include the segmenting of Shalev because it will improve detection of congestion.
The motivation for doing so would be [“an improved way of detecting congestion”] (Col 2 line 4-33 by Shalev)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kinney in view of Lin and Shalev to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7,
Kinney in view of Lin discloses: The method of claim 5, wherein encrypting the first to-be-encrypted data based on the preset encryption algorithm to obtain the first encrypted data comprises:
receiving a random public key from a random key pair sent by the server, wherein the random key pair is generated by the sever using a preset symmetric encryption algorithm; and (Shalev [Fig. 1, Col 2 line 45- Col 3 line 25, Col 5 ling 55- line 65, Col 7 line 4 – Col 8 line 43, Col 9 line 19- Col 9 line 65] teaches receiving a random symmetric public key and encrypting data with it)
encrypting the first to-be-encrypted data using the random public key to obtain the first encrypted data. (Shalev [Fig. 1, Col 2 line 45- Col 3 line 25, Col 5 ling 55- line 65, Col 7 line 4 – Col 8 line 43, Col 9 line 19- Col 9 line 65] teaches receiving a random symmetric public key and encrypting data with it)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Shalev for similar reasons as cited in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Hwang 2020-05-28 (US 20200401732) teaches a method for determining whether or not a display panel is a duplicate is provided. The method includes: generating, by a code generator in an electronic module, a code, the electronic module including a plurality of electronic components; transmitting, by the code generator, the code to each of a first sequence generator in the electronic module and a second sequence generator in a display panel, the display panel being configured to be mounted to the electronic module; generating, by the first sequence generator, a first response value, and transmitting the first response value to a certification component in the electronic module; generating, by the second sequence generator, a second response value, and transmitting the second response value to the certification component; and comparing, by the certification component, the received first response value and the received second response value.
Muto 2019-06-17 (US 20210248224) teaches a TA operates on a TEE and generates a screen. Further, the TA transmits certification information for certifying validity of the TA to a verification device. The verification device verifies whether the TA is valid on the basis of the certification information. Further, the verification device authenticates a display device when the validity of the TA is certified and when the verification device is capable of confirming the facts that a picture is being output and that a device outputting the picture is the display device. Further, the verification device outputs a random number code when the display device is authenticated. Further, the verification device transmits the random number code to the display device when the display device is authenticated. Further, the display device receives the random number code from the verification device and displays the same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A CARNES whose telephone number is (571)272-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 at (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 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.
THOMAS A. CARNES
Examiner
Art Unit 2436
/THOMAS A CARNES/Examiner, Art Unit 2436 /SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436