DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-30 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 18 and 25 are independent.
3 Two IDS’s submitted on 11/6/24 and 6/25/2025 have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 8, 18 and 25, each recites “the first digital certificate is generated based on a private key of a root certificate with a latest validity period in the at least two root certificates and information about the second device” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether “the first digital certificate” is generated based on two elements “a private key” and “information about the second device” or “a root certificate” includes two elements “a latest validity period in the at least two root certificates” and “information about the second device”. For this reason, claims 1, 8, 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Accordingly, dependent claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-24 and 26-30 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph based on their dependency of the rejected claims 1, 8, 18 and 25.
5. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It appears that the English translation of claims 1, 8, 18 and 25 produces vague, ambiguous, or nonsensical claim language that includes grammatical errors and do not clearly define the invention’s boundaries. For this reason, claims 1, 8, 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Accordingly, dependent claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-24 and 26-30 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph based on their dependency of the rejected claims 1, 8, 18 and 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 as being anticipated by Gray (US PG Pub. 2021/0392002).
As regarding claims 1, 8, 18, 25 and 28-30, Gray discloses A digital certificate verification method, applied to a first device, comprising:
receiving, by the first device from a second device, a first link certificate and a first digital certificate, wherein the first link certificate is at least one of at least one link certificate stored in the second device [para. 42-44; cross certificate],
one link certificate is obtained by signing, based on a private key of a root certificate with an earlier validity period in two root certificates, a public key of a root certificate with a later validity period in the two root certificates [FIG. 3, para. 3-5 and 42-44; root certificates generated by a private key signing a public key],
the two root certificates are any two of at least two root certificates stored in the second device [FIG. 3, para. 3-5 and 42-47; root certificates stored in devices], and
the first digital certificate is generated based on a private key of a root certificate with a latest validity period in the at least two root certificates and information about the second device [para. 3-5 and 42-44; root certificates generated by a private key signing a public key]; and
verifying, by the first device, validity of the first digital certificate based on a root certificate trusted by the first device and the first link certificate, wherein the root certificate trusted by the first device is at least one of the at least two root certificates [para. 78-90; validating certificates].
As regarding claims 2 and 19, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the root certificate trusted by the first device is any one of the at least two root certificates, the method further comprising:
sending, by the first device to the second device, a second digital certificate, so that the second device verifies validity of the second digital certificate, wherein the second digital certificate is generated based on a private key of the root certificate trusted by the first device and information about the first device [para. 3-5 and 42-44; root certificates generated by a private key signing a public key].
As regarding claims 3, 12 and 20, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein root certificates trusted by the first device are at least two of the at least two root certificates, the method further comprising:
sending, by the first device to the second device, a second link certificate and a second digital certificate, so that the second device verifies validity of the second digital certificate, wherein the second link certificate is at least one of link certificates corresponding to the root certificates trusted by the first device, and the second digital certificate is generated based on a private key of a root certificate with a latest validity period in the root certificates trusted by the first device and information about the first device [para. 3-5 and 42-44; root certificates generated by a private key signing a public key].
As regarding claims 4, 13 and 21, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 1 wherein the root certificates trusted by the first device comprise a root certificate with a latest validity period, the method further comprising:
before the root certificate with the latest validity period expires, and after a root certificate with a non-latest validity period in the at least two root certificates expires, receiving, by the first device from the second device, the first digital certificate; and verifying, by the first device, the validity of the first digital certificate based on the root certificate with the latest validity period [para. 3-5 and 42-44; root certificates generated by a private key signing a public key].
As regarding claims 5, 14 and 22, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
revoking, by the first device in a direct revocation manner, at least one certificate of the root certificates trusted by the first device, to invalidate the at least one revoked certificate [para. 3-5 and 42-44; root certificates generated by a private key signing a public key].
As regarding claims 6 and 23, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the first device from the second device, application scenario information; and after verifying that the first digital certificate is valid, confirming, by the first device, that the application scenario information is correct [para. 3-5 and 42-44; root certificates generated by a private key signing a public key].
As regarding claims 7, 16 and 24, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the first device meets a reference condition comprising at least one of: a capacity of certificate storage space is greater than a capacity threshold, or the first device has a root certificate update function; or the first device has an alarm function [para. 3-5 and 42-44; root certificates generated by a private key signing a public key].
As regarding claims 9 and 26, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 8, wherein the two root certificates are any two root certificates with adjacent validity periods in the at least two root certificates [FIG. 3, para. 3-5 and 42-47; root certificates stored in devices].
As regarding claims 10 and 27, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 8, wherein before the sending, by the second device to the first device, a first link certificate and the first digital certificate, the method further comprising:
querying, by the second device, a root certificate trusted by the first device, wherein the root certificate trusted by the first device is at least one of the at least two root certificates; and selecting, by the second device, the first link certificate from the at least one link certificate based on the root certificate trusted by the first device, wherein the root certificate trusted by the first device is used to verify validity of the first link certificate [para. 78-90; validating certificates].
As regarding claims 11, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 8, wherein the root certificate trusted by the first device is any one of the at least two root certificates, the method further comprising:
receiving, by the second device from the first device, a second digital certificate generated based on a private key of the root certificate trusted by the first device and information about the first device; and
verifying, by the second device, validity of the second digital certificate based on the root certificate trusted by the first device [para. 78-90; validating certificates].
As regarding claims 15, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 8, the method further comprising:
sending, by the second device to the first device, application scenario information corresponding to the second device, so that after verifying that the first digital certificate is valid, the first device confirms that the application scenario information is correct [para. 78-90; validating certificates].
As regarding claims 17, Gray further discloses The method according to claim 8, wherein the first device is configured to verify the validity of the first digital certificate based on the root certificate trusted by the first device and the first link certificate, wherein the root certificate trusted by the first device is at least one of the at least two root certificates [para. 78-90; validating certificates].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG P TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on 57127267986798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THONG TRUONG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433