DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-13 are pending in this examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. 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.
Claim Objections
4.1. Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
4.2. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. Claims contained capital letters (i.e. claim 2, line 1 recites “... the method of Claim 1...).
4.3. Claims 2-13 contains similar language found in claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5.1. 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.
5.2. Claims 1-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application No. 20180243573 to Yoder et al (“Yoder”) in view of US Patent Application No. 20170180341 to Walker et al (“Walker”).
Only one (1) Independ claim.
As per claim 1, Yoder discloses a method for secured communication between a medical sensor ([0028], figs. 1&3, item 104, implantable device- sensor) and a computing device ([0028], figs. 1&3, item 116 external device; “…implantable device 104 and the external device 116 have paired and established a secure telemetry connection...”) comprising:
receiving, by the medical sensor, an authentication request from the computing device ([0077], fig. 5, steps 502 external device, “…negotiation component 408 and the validation component 410. At 502, the implantable device (e.g., implantable device 104) negotiates encryption keys (e.g., via negotiation component 408) with an external device (e.g., external device 116) based on reception of a connection request from the external device…”.);
generating, based on values provided in the authentication request, a challenge-response message for the computing device ([0079], fig. 4, “… the validation component 410 can direct the communication component 402 to send a request to the external device 116 for the validation information…”);
receiving, from the computing device, a responsive challenge-response message ([0079], fig. 4, “…The external device 116 can then respond by providing the validation information as requested if the external device is in fact configured to provide the validation information and can generate the correct validation information...”).
Furthermore, Yoder discloses the implantable device 104 receives the correct validation information ([0081]); Yoder does not explicitly disclose however in the same field of endeavor, Walker discloses verifying that the responsive challenge-response message comprises an expected value and corresponds to an expected format ([0051], “… In another example, the management system 515 can pre-calculate the value that is expected for the initial log message 515 and send this hash value to the initializing gateway device to allow the comparison of the expected hash with the initial log message 515 to be performed at the gateway device 110a itself….”, [0098], “… The decoder may generate, as its output, a micro operation such as a fixed width micro operation in a predefined format, or may generate other instructions, microinstructions, or control signals that reflect the original code instruction…” , also see [0035]); and
in response to verifying the responsive challenge-response message, sending a sensor secret value to the computing device ([0035], “…the attestation device firmware can take a secret value and hash it with a random number generated from a secret seed (also provisioned on the device 105 during configuration) and potentially other values to generate attestation data. This particular implementation can allow for different, but predictable (to the management system), attestation data to be generated each time the attestation device 105 is queried (e.g., by a gateway) for attestation data, making it difficult to spoof the attestation data based on observing previous attestation data form the device 105…”).
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 Yoder with the teaching of Walker by including the feature of an expected value, in order for Yoder’s system to verify the integrity and authenticity of attestation data generated by the attestation device and captured by a gateway device. This particular implementation can allow for different, but predictable (to the management system), attestation data to be generated each time the attestation device 105 is queried (e.g., by a gateway) for attestation data, making it difficult to spoof the attestation data based on observing previous attestation data form the device 105. Accordingly, based on the firmware employed and corresponding attestation data generation algorithms used, the management system 120 can generate or assign corresponding secrets. Further, by knowing not only the secrets that are on the attestation device, but also the firmware that the attestation device will use in generating attestation data, the management system 120 can emulate generation of the attestation data (e.g., using attestation manager) to allow the management system 120 to verify the integrity and authenticity of attestation data generated by the attestation device 105 and captured by a gateway device 110 (Walker, [0035]).
As per claim 2, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the sensor secret value comprises data unique to the medical sensor and one or more random values (Walker, [0088], Each time the attestation device is called on to generate an instance of attestation data in a use session (e.g., from the same secret(s) as originally provisioned for a particular use or a given battery charge), the instance can be unique within the system (e.g., based on a random number value generated for the instance and hashed with one or more secret values stored on the attestation device). The unique attestation data can indicate to a management system the order of the instance within the session (e.g., the management system can determine that the attestation data corresponds to a particular one of a number of anticipated instances of the attestation data value). The instance of the attestation data can be sent 715 over the short range wireless connection to the gateway device for forwarding to the management system (e.g., over a wide area network connection). To protect the attestation device from tampering, the attestation device can provide that the secret(s) are erased 720, or otherwise lost, in the event of a power loss event at the attestation device.”). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 2.
As per claim 3, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the one or more random values are based on predefined values provided to the medical sensor, values generated by a communication module of the medical sensor, or values generated in response to user interactions (Walker, [0051], [00124]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 3.
As per claim 4, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: collecting, by the medical sensor, sensor information from a patient; and encrypting the sensor information using an encryption key derived from the sensor secret value (Walker, [0014], [0043], [0039], also see [0036]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 2.
As per claim 5, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: sending the encrypted sensor information to the computing device using a short-range communication protocol (Yoder, [0054], RF protocol such as BLUETOOTH®, NFC, [0073], encryption information).
As per claim 6, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the sensor information comprises medical data about the patient (Yoder, [0030], physiological information indicating the patient's heart electrical activity).
As per claim 7, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the medical data comprises body temperature, heart rate, blood glucose levels, or motion readings (Yoder, [0030], physiological information indicating the patient's heart electrical activity).
As per claim 11, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the sensor secret value is generated based on one or more of: device-unique values, manufacturing-associated values, random-value functions, or other conditioning functions (Walker, [0035], unique value). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 11.
As per claim 12, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each of the authenticated commands communicated between the medical sensor and the computing device are re-authenticated each time they are communicated (Walker, [0035], “… attestation data to be generated each time the attestation device 105 is queried (e.g., by a gateway) for attestation data, making it difficult to spoof the attestation data based on observing previous attestation data form the device 105..). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 12.
5.3 Claims 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoder and Walker as applied to claim above, and in view of US Patent Application No. 20200045540 to Hutchison et al (“Hutchison”).
As per claim 8, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the invention as described above. Yoder and Walker do not explicitly disclose however, In the same field of endeavor, Hutchison discloses the method of claim 4, wherein encrypting the sensor information comprises encoding the sensor information with a stream cipher or block cipher based on the encryption key (Hutchison, [0036]).
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 Yoder with the teaching of Walker/Hutchison by including the feature of an expected value, in order for Yoder’s system to techniques to facilitate secured communication between trusted transmitting and receiving devices. A method and system for securing CSI and DSI links using enhanced authentication and cloud tracking are disclosed. According to one embodiment, a method comprises receiving at the receiving device an encrypted information signal from the transmitting device. The encrypted information signal includes a unique identifier of the transmitting device. The method further comprises testing whether a whitelist at the receiving device includes the unique identifier of the transmitting device. The encrypted information signal is decrypted producing a retrieved information signal only if the whitelist includes the unique identifier of the transmitting device; and otherwise terminating communication with the transmitting device (Hutchison, [0008]).
As per claim 10, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses method of claim 4, wherein the sensor secret value is generated during manufacturing of the medical sensor (Hutchison, [0030]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 8 is also applied to claim 10.
5.4. Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoder and Walker as applied to claim above, and in view of US Patent Application No. 20210021404 to Mishra et al (“Mishra”).
As per claim 9, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the invention as described above. Yoder and Walker do not explicitly disclose however, In the same field of endeavor, Mishra discloses the method of claim 4, wherein inputs to the stream cipher or the block cipher are changed with every encryption block ([0043]-[0044]).
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 Yoder with the teaching of Walker/Mishra by including the feature of an encryption block, in order for Yoder’s to reducing energy and performance overhead due to the resource-constrained nature of SoC designs. Various examples are provided related to software and hardware architectures that enable a lightweight incremental encryption scheme that is implemented on a System-on-chip (SoC) resource such as a network interface. In one example, among others, a method for incremental encryption includes obtaining, by a network interface (NI) of a sender intellectual property (IP) core in a network-on-chip (NoC) based system-on-chip (SoC) architecture, a payload for communication to a receiver intellectual property (IP) core; identifying, by the NI, one or more different blocks between the payload and a payload of a previous packet communicated between the sender IP core and the receiver IP core; and encrypting, by the NI, the one or more different blocks to create encrypted blocks of an encrypted payload (Mishra, abstract).
5.5. Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoder and Walker as applied to claim above, and in view of US Patent Application No. 20130205032 to Polefko et al (“Polefko”).
As per claim 13, the combination of Yoder and Walker discloses the invention as described above. Yoder and Walker do not explicitly disclose however, In the same field of endeavor, Polefko discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the secured communication between the medical sensor and the computing device is configured as a fail open system such that, upon failure of a communication session between the medical sensor and the computing device, the medical sensor is capable of pairing with another device ([0028], if the external device is unable to connect with a previously paired implanted device (e.g., because the implanted device is out of range or because the external device is no longer approved to communicate with the implanted device), then the external device will begin to search for a new implanted medical device approved for paired communication (step 505).
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 Yoder with the teaching of Walker/Polefko by including the feature of a failed to connect, in order for Yoder’s system to connect with all MICS devices within range, in constructions where the external device is only paired with a single implanted medical device, the external device will terminate the search process as soon as a successful pairing is found. In some constructions, a clinical control device 111 is also used to establish a list of MICS IDs corresponding to one or more implanted medical devices that an external device is authorized to communicate with. This process is similar to the programming process illustrated in FIG. 3, described above. However, in other constructions, the external device itself is able to search for and identify implanted medical devices that it is approved to communicate with and is able to determine when a previous pairing has been removed and the external device is no longer approved to communicate with a specific implanted medical device (Polefko, [0025]).
6.1. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as the prior art discloses many of the claim features (See PTO-form 892).
6.2. a). US Patent Application No. 20110103583 to Yoon et al., discloses a method and a system for preserving sensor data based on a time key, and a recording medium thereof are provided. The time key based sensor data security preserving method includes encrypting the sensor data with an encryption key obtained using a time key based polynomial derived using random numbers and a secret key which is shared by a sensor node and an application system; and decrypting the encrypted sensor data with a decryption key obtained by deriving the same polynomial as the time key based polynomial using the random numbers and the secret key. Thus, integrity and confidentiality of the sensor data can be preserved.
b). US Patent No. 9824691 issued Montero et al., discloses a computer-implemented method to populate an electronic record may include generating first transcript data of first audio of a first speaker during a conversation between the first speaker and a second speaker. The method may also include generating second transcript data of second audio of the second speaker during the conversation and identifying one or more words from the first transcript data as being a value for a record field based on the identified words corresponding to the record field and the one or more words being from the first transcript data and not being from the second transcript data. The method may further include providing the identified words to an electronic record database as a value for the record field of a user record of the first speaker.
c). US Patent Application No. 20190042249 to Suresh et al., discloses methods and apparatuses relating to high-performance authenticated encryption are described. A hardware accelerator may include a vector register to store an input vector of a round of an encryption operation; a circuit including a first data path including a first modular adder coupled to a first input from the vector register and a second input from the vector register, and a second modular adder coupled to the first modular adder and a second data path from the vector register, and the second data path including a first logical XOR circuit coupled to the second input and a third data path from the vector register, a first rotate circuit coupled to the first logical XOR circuit, a second logical XOR circuit coupled to the first rotate circuit and the third data path, and a second rotate circuit coupled to the second logical XOR circuit; and a control circuit to cause the first modular adder and the second modular adder of the first data path and the first logical XOR circuit, the second logical XOR circuit, the first rotate circuit, and the second rotate circuit of the second data path to perform a portion of the round according to one or more control values, and store a first result from the first data path for the portion and a second result from the second data path for the portion into the vector register.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARUNUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 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, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
HARUNUR . RASHID
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2497
/HARUNUR RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497