DETAILED ACTION
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 October 01, 2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings filed on June 14, 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed June 14, 2024 is accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,695,782 B2 (hereinafter 782’ patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 2-21 of the present application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the 782’ patent. Claims 2-21 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of the 782’ patent because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the 782’ patent.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,594,702 B2 (hereinafter 702’ patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 2-21 of the present application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the 702’ patent. Claims 2-21 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of the 702’ patent because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the 782’ patent.
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.
Claims 2-13, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2017/0078881 A1 [hereinafter Lee] in view of Park et al. US 2005/0144439 A1 [hereinafter Park].
As per claims 2 and 21, Lee teaches a method for authenticating a communication between two devices, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, a first transmission comprising a first portion of a cryptographic key, the cryptographic key corresponding to a sender computing device [paragraphs 0062-0070];
receiving, by the computing system, a second transmission comprising a second portion of the cryptographic key [paragraphs 0062-0070];
validating, by the computing system, the cryptographic key based on the first portion and the second portion [paragraphs 0062-0070].
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches an authentication method comprising:
registering, by the computing system, the cryptographic key with an authority entity [paragraphs 0057-0060]; and
sending, by the computing system, a third transmission indicating the cryptographic key has been publicly registered [paragraphs 0057-0060]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to employ the teachings of Park within the system of Lee in order to enhance security of the system by registering cryptographic key information with a centralized key authority entity.
As per claim 3, Lee further teaches the method wherein the first transmission is received via a first communication channel, and the second transmission is received via a second communication channel [paragraphs 0062-0070].
As per claim 4, Lee further teaches the method wherein the cryptographic key is generated based on a public-private key pair [paragraphs 0062-0070].
As per claim 5, Lee further teaches the method wherein the cryptographic key is generated by the sender computing device [paragraphs 0062-0070].
As per claim 6, Lee further teaches the method wherein the cryptographic key is generated based on a unique identifier of the sender computing device [paragraphs 0062-0070].
As per claim 7, Park further teaches the method wherein the cryptographic key is a public key, and wherein the third transmission indicates the public key has been publicly registered [paragraphs 0057-0060]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to employ the teachings of Park within the system of Lee in order to enhance security of the system by registering cryptographic key information with a centralized key authority entity.
As per claim 8, Park further teaches the method, wherein registering the cryptographic key comprises registering the cryptographic key on a public key infrastructure (PKI) [paragraphs 0057-0060]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to employ the teachings of Park within the system of Lee in order to enhance security of the system by registering cryptographic key information with a centralized key authority entity.
As per claim 9, Lee further teaches the method wherein the cryptographic key is a public key, and wherein the third transmission comprises at least one of the public key or a private key corresponding to the public key [paragraphs 0062-0070].
As per claim 10, Lee further teaches the method wherein validating the cryptographic key comprises combining the first portion of the cryptographic key with the second portion of the cryptographic key [paragraphs 0062-0070].
As per claim 11, Lee further teaches the method wherein the first transmission or the second transmission comprises a text message [paragraphs 0062-0070].
As per claim 12, Park further teaches the method wherein the third transmission comprises an identity certificate [paragraphs 0057-0060]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to employ the teachings of Park within the system of Lee in order to enhance security of the system by registering cryptographic key information with a centralized certificate authority.
As per claim 13, Lee further teaches the method further comprising receiving an authentication request corresponding to an electronic communication generated by the sender computing device [paragraphs 0062-0070].
As per claim 16, Lee further teaches the method further comprising sending a fourth transmission to a recipient computing device, the fourth transmission indicating the authentication request has been validated [paragraphs 0062-0070].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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 and further overcoming Double Patenting rejection indicated above.
Claims 17-20 would be allowable by overcoming the Double Patenting rejection indicated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEEMNET W DADA whose telephone number is (571)272-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached at 571-272-3685. 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.
BEEMNET W. DADA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2435
/BEEMNET W DADA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435