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 .
This Office action is responsive to Preliminary Amendment filed on 05/27/2025.
Claims 1, 7-11, 14-15, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 and 08/13/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 10 recite “receiving a first command from a network device, wherein the first command comprises a first value, and the first command is a select command, a query command, a query repeat command, a query adjust command, or an acknowledgment command; determining a first response value based on the first value and a security key; and sending a first request, wherein the first request comprises the first response value, and the first response value is used by a verification function to verify a terminal device”. The limitations of receiving a first command from a network device; determining a first response value based on the first value and a security key; and sending a first request, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the receiving, determining, and sending steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of sending a first request, wherein the first request comprises the first response value, and the first response value is used by a verification function to verify a terminal device) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform receiving, determining, and sending steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims 1-6 and 10-16 are not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claims 7 and 17 recite “receiving a first request, wherein the first request comprises a first response value, the first response value is determined based on a security key and a first value comprised in a first command of a network device, and the first command is one of a select command, a query command, a query repeat command, a query adjust command, or an acknowledgment command; and verifying a terminal device based on the first response value”. The limitations of receiving a first request, wherein the first request comprises a first response value and verifying, by the verification function, a terminal device based on the first response value, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the receiving and verifying steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of verifying a terminal device based on the first response value) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform receiving and verifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims 7-10 and 17-20 are not patent eligible.
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)(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.
(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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robshaw et al. (US Patent No. 9,916,483 B1) listed in IDS dated 08/13/2025 hereinafter Robshaw.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Robshaw discloses a method and an apparatus (FIG. 17, element 1310), comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor is coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one memory stores instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, ([col. 15, lines 23-29]: “Such media, individually or in combination with others, have stored thereon instructions, data, keys, signatures, and other data of a program made according to the embodiments. A storage medium according to the embodiments is a computer-readable medium, such as a memory, and is read by a processor of the type mentioned above”) cause the apparatus to:
receive a first command from a network device (FIG. 17, element 1320), wherein the first command comprises a first value, and the first command is a select command, a query command, a query repeat command, a query adjust command, or an acknowledgment command ([FIG. 12, element 1202, 1208, 1210, 1220] and [FIG. 17, element 1314] and [col. 24, lines 62-63]: "reader sends a challenge during tag selection 1202" and [col. 22, lines 47-48]: "selection command may be the Select command of the Gen2 Specification" and [col. 23, lines 27-28]: "challenge is a message that contains a random number" and [col. 22, lines 52-56]: "In some embodiments, the reader performs the inventory 1204 according to the Query-ACK sequence described in the Gen2 Specification. In the Gen2 Query-ACK sequence, a reader first transmits a Query/QueryAdj/QueryRep command" and [col. 25, lines 19-23 ] :"commands and signals in sequence 1200 do not have to be performed in the particular order shown, or even grouped as shown. The commands and signals may be separated, combined, or interspersed among each other".)
determine a first response value based on the first value and a security key ([FIG. 12, element 1208, 1210, 1220] and [FIG. 17, element 1716] and [col. 23, lines 30-38]: "challenge instructs a receiving entity, such as a tag or reader, to determine a cryptographic response based on the random number, the cryptographic parameter(s), and entity information such as an entity key, an entity identifier, or any other suitable entity information. The receiving entity may itself compute the cryptographic response using a cryptographic algorithm, or may have another entity compute and provide the cryptographic response to the receiving entity" and [col. 23, lines 42-46]: "challenge originates from the reader, includes a reader random number RN_RDR ... Upon receiving the challenge, the tag computes a response to the challenge based on the RN_RDR, the TKEY".);
send a first request, wherein the first request comprises the first response value, and the first response value is used by a verification function (FIG. 17, element 1330) to verify the apparatus ([FIG. 12, element 1208, 1210, 1220] and [FIG. 17, element 1716] and [col. 23, lines 56-65]: "tag then sends the computed response to the reader. At this point the reader may be able to verify the tag's response using the RN_RDR ... the reader may itself verify the tag's response, or the reader may send the challenge, the received tag response, and other information to a verification authority for verification").
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Robshaw discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the first request further comprises a second value, the second value is used by the verification function to determine a second response value, and the apparatus is further configured to: receive a first response message, wherein the first response message comprises the second response value; and verify the network device based on the second response value ([FIG.17, element 1716, 1726] and [col. 30, 1 lines 9-21]: "tag 1310 responds to the reader-tag challenge 1314 by sending a tag response 1716 that also includes a tag-reader challenge" and [col. 32, lines 15-17]: "reader 1320 may then transmit a message 1726 with the tag-reader challenge response to tag 1310" and [col. 24, lines 18-22]: "reader may send RN_RDR to the tag, receive an encrypted random number from the tag, decrypt the received random number using the TPK, and verify the tag or tag response by comparing the sent RN_RDR with the decrypted, received random number" and [col. 32, lines 6-13]: "Likewise, if tag 1310 originally sent an unencrypted first parameter, it can check if the received second parameter corresponds to the encrypted first parameter. If the tag-reader challenge response includes an electronic signature, tag 1310 may verify the electronic signature using its TKEY (for message authentication codes) or the verification authority public key (for digital signatures)").
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Robshaw discloses the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the apparatus is further configured to: determine a third response value based on the second value and the security key; determine whether the second response value is the same as the third response value; and when the second response value is the same as the third response value, determine that the network device passes verification ([FIG.17, element 1716, 1726] and [col. 30, 1 lines 9-21]: "tag 1310 responds to the reader-tag challenge 1314 by sending a tag response 1716 that also includes a tag-reader challenge" and [col. 32, lines 15-17]: "reader 1320 may then transmit a message 1726 with the tag-reader challenge response to tag 1310" and [col. 24, lines 18-22]: "reader may send RN_RDR to the tag, receive an encrypted random number from the tag, decrypt the received random number using the TPK, and verify the tag or tag response by comparing the sent RN_RDR with the decrypted, received random number" and [col. 32, lines 6-13]: "Likewise, if tag 1310 originally sent an unencrypted first parameter, it can check if the received second parameter corresponds to the encrypted first parameter. If the tag-reader challenge response includes an electronic signature, tag 1310 may verify the electronic signature using its TKEY (for message authentication codes) or the verification authority public key (for digital signatures)").
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Robshaw discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the first response message further comprises an electronic product code, and the electronic product code is used to identify the apparatus [ col. 25, lines 23-24] "an interrogated tag may transmit its tag ID with its response to a reader challenge" and [col. 20, lines 5-8]: "ID 1036 identifies the tag and/or an item to which the tag is attached, and may include a tag identifier (TID), a tag handle, an item identifier such as an electronic product code (EPC)").
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Robshaw discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the first request further comprises an electronic product code, and the electronic product code is used to identify the apparatus [ col. 25, lines 23-24] "an interrogated tag may transmit its tag ID with its response to a reader challenge" and [col. 20, lines 5-8]: "ID 1036 identifies the tag and/or an item to which the tag is attached, and may include a tag identifier (TID), a tag handle, an item identifier such as an electronic product code (EPC)").
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Robshaw discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the verification function comprises an application function, an authentication, authorization, and accounting function or a unified data management function ([FIG. 12 - element 1208, 1210, 1220] and [FIG. 17, element 1716] and [col. 23, lines 56-65]: "tag then sends the computed response to the reader. At this point the reader may be able to verify the tag's response using the RN_RDR ... the reader may itself verify the tag's response, or the reader may send the challenge, the received tag response, and other information to a verification authority for verification".).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Robshaw discloses a method and an apparatus (FIG. 17, element 1320|1330), comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor is coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one memory stores instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor ([col. 15, lines 23-29]: “Such media, individually or in combination with others, have stored thereon instructions, data, keys, signatures, and other data of a program made according to the embodiments. A storage medium according to the embodiments is a computer-readable medium, such as a memory, and is read by a processor of the type mentioned above”), cause the apparatus to:
receive a first request, wherein the first request comprises a first response value, the first response value is determined based on a security key and a first value comprised in a first command of a network device ([FIG. 12 - element 1208, 1210, 1220] and [FIG. 17, element 1716] and [col. 23, lines 56-65]: "tag then sends the computed response to the reader. At this point the reader may be able to verify the tag's response using the RN_RDR ... the reader may itself verify the tag's response, or the reader may send the challenge, the received tag response, and other information to a verification authority for verification".), and the first command is one of a select command, a query command, a query repeat command, a query adjust command, or an acknowledgment command ([FIG. 12, element 1202, 1208, 1210, 1220] and [FIG. 17, element. 1314] and [col. 24, lines 62-63]: "reader sends a challenge during tag selection 1202" and [col. 22, lines 47-48]: "selection command may be the Select command of the Gen2 Specification" and [col. 23, lines 27-28]: "challenge is a message that contains a random number" and [col. 22, lines 52-56]: "In some embodiments, the reader performs the inventory 1204 according to the Query-ACK sequence described in the Gen2 Specification. In the Gen2 Query-ACK sequence, a reader first transmits a Query/QueryAdj/QueryRep command" and [col. 25, lines 19-23 ] :"commands and signals in sequence 1200 do not have to be performed in the particular order shown, or even grouped as shown. The commands and signals may be separated, combined, or interspersed among each other".); and
verify a terminal device based on the first response value [FIG. 17, element 1716] and [col. 23, lines 56-65]: "tag then sends the computed response to the reader. At this point the reader may be able to verify the tag's response using the RN_RDR ... the reader may itself verify the tag's response, or the reader may send the challenge, the received tag response, and other information to a verification authority for verification".).
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Robshaw discloses the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the apparatus is further configured to: determine a third value, and determine a fourth response value based on the third value and the security key; determine whether the first response value is the same as the fourth response value; and when the first response value is the same as the fourth response value, determine that the terminal device passes verification ([FIG.17, element 1716, 1726] and [col. 30, 1 lines 9-21]: "tag 1310 responds to the reader-tag challenge 1314 by sending a tag response 1716 that also includes a tag-reader challenge" and [col. 32, lines 15-17]: "reader 1320 may then transmit a message 1726 with the tag-reader challenge response to tag 1310" and [col. 24, lines 18-22]: "reader may send RN_RDR to the tag, receive an encrypted random number from the tag, decrypt the received random number using the TPK, and verify the tag or tag response by comparing the sent RN_RDR with the decrypted, received random number" and [col. 32, lines 6-13]: "Likewise, if tag 1310 originally sent an unencrypted first parameter, it can check if the received second parameter corresponds to the encrypted first parameter. If the tag-reader challenge response includes an electronic signature, tag 1310 may verify the electronic signature using its TKEY (for message authentication codes) or the verification authority public key (for digital signatures)").
Regarding claim 9 and 19, Robshaw discloses the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the first request further comprises a second value, and the apparatus is further configured to: determine a second response value based on the second value and the security key; and send a first response message, wherein the first response message comprises the second response value, and the second response value is used by the terminal device to verify the network device ([FIG.17, element 1716, 1726] and [col. 30, 1 lines 9-21]: "tag 1310 responds to the reader-tag challenge 1314 by sending a tag response 1716 that also includes a tag-reader challenge" and [col. 32, lines 15-17]: "reader 1320 may then transmit a message 1726 with the tag-reader challenge response to tag 1310" and [col. 24, lines 18-22]: "reader may send RN_RDR to the tag, receive an encrypted random number from the tag, decrypt the received random number using the TPK, and verify the tag or tag response by comparing the sent RN_RDR with the decrypted, received random number" and [col. 32, lines 6-13]: "Likewise, if tag 1310 originally sent an unencrypted first parameter, it can check if the received second parameter corresponds to the encrypted first parameter. If the tag-reader challenge response includes an electronic signature, tag 1310 may verify the electronic signature using its TKEY (for message authentication codes) or the verification authority public key (for digital signatures)").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOTRAN N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-8156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
/BAOTRAN N TO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435