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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A – Applicant argues: On pages 7-8 of Remarks of 06/24/2026, that a shortening a discovery-phase waiting time in a protocol based on a user confirmation that the intended peer device has had time to participate is not the same as Carlson’s shortening of a time with the press of a button.
A – The Examiner respectfully disagrees: The claims as written require a shortening of a waiting time and Carlson shortens the waiting time with the button press. The concepts within the Specification are not read into the claims. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
B – Applicant argues: On page 6 of Applicant remarks of 06/24/2026 Applicant claims to have addressed claim 11 112 4th paragraph rejection.
B – The Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Applicant did not address the 112 4th paragraph rejection of claim 11, merely corrected the claim that claim 11 was dependent on. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
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 11 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 11 depends from claim 7, merely changing the embodiment, however claim 11 does not further limit claim 7. 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 § 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, 3-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollakota et al., (Secure In-Band Wireless Pairing; 2011, from IDS of 11/25/2024), hereinafter “Gollakota”, and further in view of Carlson et al., (US Publication No. 2006/0105794), hereinafter “Carlson”.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 11 Gollakota discloses
sending, by the first device, a first message after receiving a first button press [Gollakota, section 5.2, see also section 1 and section 3.1];
listening by the first device for a second message until an expiry of a waiting time [Gollakota, section 5.2],
aborting, by the first device, the push-button protocol if no second messages have been received or if second messages have been received from more than one device [Gollakota, section 5.2, see also section 1 and section 3.1];
listening, by the second device, for the first message after receiving a first button press and until the expiry of a waiting time [Gollakota, section 5.2, see also section 1 and section 3.1],
sending, by the second device, the second message if a first message has been received [Gollakota, section 5.2, see also section 1 and section 3.1; Every time a TEA message is received, the registrar records the message payload, and immediately sends its own TEA message in response];
proceeding to the secure phase if one or more first messages have been received from only one device, and the wait time has ended [Gollakota, section 5.2]; and
aborting, by the second device, the push-button protocol if no first messages have been received or if the first messages have been received from more than one device [Gollakota, section 5.2].
Gollakota does not specifically disclose, however Carlson teaches
wherein the waiting time is shortened by the detection of a subsequent button press on the first device [Carlson, paragraph 10, a press of the P2V button activates the P2V session and a second push of the P2V button or another designated button ends the session];
wherein the waiting time is shortened by the detection of a subsequent button press on the second device [Carlson, paragraph 10, a press of the P2V button activates the P2V session and a second push of the P2V button or another designated button ends the session].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second push of the button in order to provide security for the system when there is no longer a need to have the channel open. It would have been obvious to combine Carlson with Gollakota as both arts relate to a similar field.
Regarding claim 3, Gollakota-Carlson further discloses
where the first device sends first messages over more than one channel [Gollakota, section 5.2].
Regarding claim 4, Gollakota-Carlson further discloses
where the first device listens for first messages on more than one channel [Gollakota, section 5.2].
Regarding claims 5, 10, Gollakota-Carlson further discloses
where the first message is a Push Button Presence Announcement, the second message is a Push Button Presence Announcement Response [Gollakota, section 5.2] and the secure phase of the protocol starts with the PKIEX protocol from the Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP) [Gollakota, section 5.2, see also section 1 and section 3.1].
Regarding claim 8, Gollakota-Carlson further discloses
where the first device sends first messages over more than one channel [Gollakota, section 5.2].
Regarding claim 9, Gollakota-Carlson further discloses
where the second first device listens for first messages on more than one channel [Gollakota, section 5.2].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J GOODCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-1589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
/William J. Goodchild/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights