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 is in response to the communication filed on 04/27/2026. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application. Claims 1-14 have been rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, page 6 of remarks, filed on 04/27/2026, with respect to objection to claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, page 7 of remarks, filed on 04/27/2026, with respect to 35 USC 102(a)(2) type rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 11-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further examination and consideration, a different illustration / embodiment of OPSENICA et al. reference was still found to teach the features set forth by claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 11-14. Examiner’s positions regarding the teachings of OPSENICA et al. reference are further clarified in this office action (See office action below for detail explanations)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2020/221449 A1 (hereinafter OPSENICA et al.)
Regarding claim 1, OPSENICA et al. teaches a method for controlling interaction between a first physical entity (note figure 608: cooperating system; page 2, lines 16-30; and page 4, lines 6-15: a cooperating system) and a second physical entity (note figure 6.602: mobile entity; page 2, lines 16-30; and page 4, lines 6-15: controller in a system/ mobile entity)
receiving an interaction request from the second physical entity (note page 2, lines 16-28: “The method, performed by a controller of the system, comprises seeking to establish a trust relationship with a cooperating system hosted on a mobile entity, and, if a trust relationship with the cooperating system is established, performing at least one of: initiating use of a resource provided by the cooperating system, or initiating provision of a resource for use by the cooperating system”);
in response to the interaction request, transmitting a verification request to a first virtual entity representing the first physical entity (note figure 6. 604: digital twin; page 4, lines 18-29; and page 18, lines 30-35: negotiating / transmitting verification request to digital twin/ representative representing the cooperative system; “verifying the obtained identity or security credential may comprise requesting verification of the obtained identity or security credential from digital representative of the system, and receiving a verification response from the digital representative”);
in response to the verification request, determining a measure of a trustworthiness of the second physical entity (note page 4, lines 1-34: cooperating system determining trust policy or security credential associated with the controller of the system; verifying the request based on trust relationship data; “the response may be accompanied by a specification of resources provided by the cooperating system that the system is authorized to use or a specification of resources that the system is authorized to provide to the cooperative system” ); and
controlling interaction of the second physical entity with the first physical entity on the basis of the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity (note page 2, lines 16-24; page 4, lines 11-29: controlling access/ sharing of resources upon trust relationship verification; “if a trust relationship with the cooperative system is established, performing at least one of: initiating use of a resource provided by the cooperative system, or initiating provision of a resource for use by the cooperative system”)
Regarding claim 3, OPSENICA et al. teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first virtual entity (note figure 6. 604: digital twin; page 4, lines 18-29: digital twin/ representative representing the cooperative system) determines:
trustworthiness information relating to trustworthiness criterion of the second physical entity in response to the verification request (note page 4, lines 1-4; and page 26, lines 29-35: specifying trust policy/ relationship information for verifying the access request); and
the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity using the trustworthiness information (note page 4, lines 1-4; and page 26, lines 29-35; determining trust policy or security credential associated with the controller of the system)
Regarding claim 4, OPSENICA et al. teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein:
in response to the verification request, the first virtual entity (note figure 6. 604: digital twin; page 3, lines 1-5; and page 18, lines 30-35: digital twin or representative associated with the mobile entity/ cooperative system) transmits a request for the trustworthiness information to a second virtual entity representing the second physical entity (note page 18, lines 30-35; and page 20, lines 23-36: negotiating / requesting for verification data to digital twin/ representative representing controller of the system); and
in response to the request, the second virtual entity transmits the trustworthiness information to the first virtual entity (note page 18, lines 30-35; and page 20, lines 23-36: controller of the system sending trust relationship data, credential to the digital twin/ representative associated with the mobile entity/ cooperative system)
Regarding claim 5, OPSENICA et al. teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the request to provide the trustworthiness information comprises definition of the trustworthiness criterion (note page 4, lines 1-4; and page 26, lines 29-35: specifying trust policy/ relationship information for verifying the access request)
Regarding claim 7, OPSENICA et al. teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first virtual entity,
receives a predefined rule for assessing the trustworthiness of the second physical entity (note page 4, lines 1-4; and page 26, lines 29-35: specifying predefined trust policy/ relationship information for verifying the access request); and
determine the measure of the trustworthiness of the physical entity based on the rule (note page 4, lines 1-4; and page 26, lines 29-35)
Regarding claim 11, OPSENICA et al. teaches a system (note page 2, lines 16-30: system) comprising:
a first physical entity (note figure 608: cooperating system; page 2, lines 16-30; and page 4, lines 6-15: a cooperating system) to receive an interaction request from a second physical entity (note page 2, lines 16-28: “The method, performed by a controller of the system, comprises seeking to establish a trust relationship with a cooperating system hosted on a mobile entity, and, if a trust relationship with the cooperating system is established, performing at least one of: initiating use of a resource provided by the cooperating system, or initiating provision of a resource for use by the cooperating system”);
wherein the first physical entity (note figure 608: cooperating system; page 2, lines 16-30; and page 4, lines 6-15: a cooperating system) is configured, in response to the interaction request, to transmit a verification request to the first virtual entity (note figure 6. 604: digital twin; page 4, lines 18-29; and page 18, lines 30-35: negotiating / transmitting verification request to digital twin/ representative representing the cooperative system; “verifying the obtained identity or security credential may comprise requesting verification of the obtained identity or security credential from digital representative of the system, and receiving a verification response from the digital representative”);
the first virtual entity (note figure 6. 604: digital twin; page 18, lines 30-35: digital twin or representative associated with first subsystem/ cooperative system) is configured, in response to the verification request, to determine a measure of a trustworthiness of the second physical entity (note figure 6. 604: digital twin; page 4, lines 18-29; and page 18, lines 30-35: negotiating / transmitting verification request to digital twin/ representative representing the cooperative system; “verifying the obtained identity or security credential may comprise requesting verification of the obtained identity or security credential from digital representative of the system, and receiving a verification response from the digital representative”); and
the second physical entity is allowed to interact with the first physical entity on the basis of the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity (note page 2, lines 16-24; page 4, lines 11-29: controlling access/ sharing of resources upon trust relationship verification; “if a trust relationship with the cooperative system is established, performing at least one of: initiating use of a resource provided by the cooperative system, or initiating provision of a resource for use by the cooperative system”)
Regarding claim 12, OPSENICA et al. teaches the system as claimed in claim 11, further comprising the second physical entity (note page 2, lines 16-28: “The method, performed by a controller of the system, comprises seeking to establish a trust relationship with a cooperating system hosted on a mobile entity, and, if a trust relationship with the cooperating system is established, performing at least one of: initiating use of a resource provided by the cooperating system, or initiating provision of a resource for use by the cooperating system”)
Regarding claim 13, OPSENICA et al teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first virtual entity is configured:
in response to the verification request, to determine trustworthiness information relating to trustworthiness criterion of the second physical entity (note page 4, lines 1-4; and page 26, lines 29-35: specifying trust policy/ relationship information for verifying the access request); and
to determine the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity on the basis of the trustworthiness information (note page 4, lines 1-4; and page 26, lines 29-35; determining trust policy or security credential associated with the controller of the system)
Regarding claim 14, OPSENICA et al teaches the system as claimed in claim 13, further comprising
a second virtual entity representing the second physical entity (note figure 16: second digital twin associated with second subsystem);
wherein the first virtual entity (note figure 6. 604: digital twin; page 3, lines 1-5; and page 18, lines 30-35: digital twin or representative associated with the mobile entity/ cooperative system) is configured, in response to the verification request, to transmit a request to provide the trustworthiness information to the second virtual entity (note page 18, lines 30-35; and page 20, lines 23-36: negotiating / requesting for verification data to digital twin/ representative representing controller of the system); and
the second virtual entity is configured, in response to the request, to transmit the trustworthiness information to the first virtual entity (note page 18, lines 30-35; and page 20, lines 23-36: controller of the system sending trust relationship data, credential to the digital twin/ representative associated with the mobile entity/ cooperative system)
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 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 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OPSENICA et al. in view of US 2024/0039910 A1 (hereinafter Falk et al.)
Regarding claims 2 and 6, OPSENICA et al. fails to teach expressly the method as claimed wherein the first virtual entity comprises a first administration shell.
However, Falk et al. teaches the method as claimed wherein the first virtual entity comprises a first administration shell (note para. [0003] – [0004]: administration shell that implements a virtual representation of real object).
Falk et al. and OPSENICA et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of authenticating a network device for secure communication. Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify OPSENICA et al. method to further include the features of the method as claimed wherein the first virtual entity comprises a first administration shell in order to provide users with a secure and cost saving mechanism for authenticating the network physical devices through use of their virtual representations (note Falk et al. , para. [0003], [0008] - [0009])
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OPSENICA et al. in view of US 2014/0173686 A1 (hereinafter Kgil et al.)
Regarding claim 8, OPSENICA et al. fails to teach expressly the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
However, Kgil et al. teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity is determined as a binary measure (note para. [0075]: selectively determining number of trust levels can be used); and
the interaction of the second physical entity with the first physical entity:
is allowed if the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity corresponds to a first predefined value (note para. [0075] – [0076]: each trust level corresponding to predetermined trustworthiness score/ threshold) ; and/ or
is not allowed if the measure if the trustworthiness of the second physical entity corresponds of a second predefined value (note para. [0075] – [0076])
Kgil et al. and OPSENICA et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of authenticating a network device for secure communication based on trustworthiness information. Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify OPSENICA et al. method to further include the features of the interaction of the second physical entity with the first physical entity: is allowed if the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity corresponds to a first predefined value; and/ or is not allowed if the measure if the trustworthiness of the second physical entity corresponds of a second predefined value in order to provide users a secure mechanism for initiating interactions between two physical entities/ mobile devices using trustworthiness attribute information associated with the entities/ devices (note Kgil et al., para. [0003], [0005])
Regarding claim 9, OPSENICA et al. fails to teach expressly the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity is determined by determining one of three or more trustworthiness levels for the second physical entity.
However, Kgil et al teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity is determined by determining one of three or more trustworthiness levels for the second physical entity (note para. [0075]: selectively determining number of trust levels can be used (e.g. level 0 through 4 etc.))
Kgil et al. and OPSENICA et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of authenticating a network device for secure communication based on trustworthiness information. Therefore, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify OPSENICA et al. method to further include the features of the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity is determined by determining one of three or more trustworthiness levels for the second physical entity in order to provide users a secure mechanism for initiating interactions between two physical entities/ mobile devices using trustworthiness information associated with the entities/ devices (note Kgil et al., para. [0003], [0005])
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 9, furthermore, Kgil et al teaches the method wherein the interaction of the second physical entity with the first physical entity:
is allowed if the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity corresponds to a first trustworthiness level of the three or more trustworthiness levels (note para. [0075] – [0076]: each trust level corresponding to predetermined trustworthiness score/ threshold); and/or
is allowed to a restricted extent if the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity corresponds to a second trustworthiness level of the three or more trustworthiness levels (note para. [0075] – [0076]); and/ or
is not allowed if the measure of the trustworthiness of the second physical entity corresponds to a third trustworthiness level of the three or more trustworthiness levels (note para. [0075] – [0076])
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire in 3 (Three) months and 0 (Zero) days from the mailing date of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will result in ABANDOMENT of the application (see 35 U.S.C 133, M.P.E.P 710.02(b)). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANTO ABEDIN whose telephone number is 571-272-3551. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jung (Jay) Kim, can be reached on 571-272-3804. The RightFax number for faxing directly to the examiner is 571-273-3551.
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.
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. 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).
/SHANTO ABEDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights