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 Amendment
The amendment filed 09/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16, 19 and 20 has been amended. No Claims have been newly added. Claims 2-3, 7-8, 12-13 and 17-18 been/remains canceled. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16, 19 and 20 remain pending in the application.
Applicant amendments to the Specification have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/11/2026. The objection has been withdrawn in view of the amended Specification.
Applicant amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/11/2026. The rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amended Claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 10-17 of the remark filed on 04/15/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent Claims 1: “receiving, from a reader device, first information on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction and second information on an access level of the reader device”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 13-14 that the cited references fail to teach receiving, from a reader device, first information on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction and second information on an access level of the reader device. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Felice teaches on Par. (0111, 0113) a reader device delivery agent that receives from a point of delivery first information in the form of delivery data and supporting a fast transaction of delivery data for access. Ho further teaches on Par. (0197) second information such as phot of a person badge etc. to describe access levels to home based on confidence and delivery data. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
However Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 10-17 of the remark filed on 04/15/2026, on the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1 “in response to the reader device supporting the fast transaction and the access level allowing access from a non-validated terminal, transmitting, to the second terminal, a cryptogram of the first terminal and an identifier (ID) of the reader device, wherein access of the second terminal to the reader device is allowed based on an ID of the second terminal and the cryptogram of the first terminal,.”, arguments are persuasive.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Felice et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190279151) further in view of Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786), has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art: Dunjic et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210075791) in conjunction Felice et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190279151) further in view of Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786)). Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below for a detailed explanation.
For the reasons stated above and the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, see Applicant’s Remarks Page 10-17, regarding allowance of the application. Examiner asserts that claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16, 19 and 20 are rejected for the reasons stated above in conjunction with the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Conclusion: Felice- Ho- Dunjic- teaches the aforementioned limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 rendering the claim limitations obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 9, 14 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to Claims 4, 9, 14 and 19, the applicant recites the limitation “wherein, in case that the ID of the second terminal is not matched with an ID stored in the reader device, the cryptogram of the first terminal is decrypted” and “in case that the ID of the second terminal is not matched with an ID stored in the reader device, identifying the ID of the second terminal as the ID of the second terminal and decrypting the cryptogram of the first terminal by a private key”, this becomes unclear because there is no support or description in the specification of a matching step of IDs and when an ID is not matched then decrypting the cryptogram. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted in light of the specification that the above limitations when a matching of a IDs is performed the phrase “ in case that” is a conditional limitation and when a matching and decryption are performed and IDs are found the limitation is met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 5, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felice et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190279151, hereinafter referred to as “Felice”) and Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786, hereinafter referred to as “Ho”) further in view of Dunjic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210075791, hereinafter referred to as “Dunjic”)
In regards to Claim 1, Felice teaches a method performed by a first device in a wireless communication system, (Par. (0015, 0087-0088, 0111, 0113); first device (deliver agent with wireless device)), (Par. (0009); wireless connected system))
the method comprising: receiving, from a reader device, first information on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction and (Par. (0111, 0113); receiving from a reader device (delivery agent receiving from point of delivery) first information (delivery data) on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction (deliver data that includes access data, lock-alarm data for delivery)), (Par. (0054-0056 and 0022); reader device (point of deliver as home with smart lock),(Par. (0117-0118); first information on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction (delivery data is accessed to determine if delivery agent can have access/system unlocked to deliver package), (Examiner note: In the instant application on Par. (00112) states a fast transaction to be “a transaction shortened such that a deliverer can quickly access a specific gate or reader at a common entrance of a multi-dwelling unit or at a public place”, therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted that first information refers to data allowing a deliverer to deliver a package corresponding to a customer order/transaction; Examiner further states the instant application refers to “reader device” on Par. (0056) to be “door locks or gates for entry/exit”, therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted that reader device be a home or point of delivery that contains smart locks or entryway for delivery)
determining a method in which the reader device validates a second terminal, based on the first information and the second information; and (Figure 5 labels 560, 564, 568, 572 and Par. (0116-0120); reader device (point of delivery) identifies delivery agent and verifies/authenticates the second device (delivery agent) based on first information (delivery data)), (Par. (0197); second information (photo of user, badge etc. for authentication)
Felice does not explicitly teach second information on an access level of the reader device in response to the reader device supporting the fast transaction and the access level allowing access from a non-validated terminal, transmitting, to the second terminal, a cryptogram of the first terminal and an identifier (ID) of the reader device, wherein access of the second terminal to the reader device is allowed based on an ID of the second terminal and the cryptogram of the first terminal, wherein the first terminal is a terminal validated by the reader device, and wherein the second terminal is a terminal not validated by the reader device, the second terminal including an encryption key shared from the first terminal.
Wherein Ho teaches second information on an access level of the reader device (Par. (0197); second information (photo of person, badge etc.) on an access level of the reader device (delivery company being verified and authentic to deliver to home with access) (Par. (0197 and 0201); reader device (door management platform of home owner) receives first information that includes access level (information and data of deliver)), (Par. (0376); reader device access level (high low and moderate trust level from resident of house with corresponding high/low authentication for access/unlocking of home), (Par. (0108-0109); reader’s device (door management platform associated with locking device)), (Par. (0382-0383) reader’s device’s (door management platform with locking device) access level (notification of untrusted individuals around the neighborhood and in proximity with heighten authentication requirements)),(Examiner Note: In the instant application on Par. (00112) the specification defines “based on access level” to be how quickly can the deliverer access a specific gate and on Par. (00118) the specification defines access level of reader to be security level/ reliability associated with a low medium or high ranking for authorized devices to have access. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as a trust level associated with the reader device with a trust rule and level as well as high security level (heighten authentication requirement) around the neighborhood))
wherein the first terminal is a terminal validated by the reader device, and (Par. (0084); reader device (door management platform with b-lock door)), (Figure 1A label 101A , 102Aand 107A; reader device (door with b-lock associated with door management platform) with first device is an owner device (owner device 102A)), (Par. (0104-0105); reader device (b-lock door management platform) verifies and validates first device is an owner device (mobile device of owner))
wherein the second terminal is a terminal not validated by the reader device, (Figure 8A labels 602A and 602B- (first and second mobile device)) (Par. (0131); second device (mobile device 602B registers as new user)) (Par. 0127-0130); second device (mobile device 602A ) is a friend device (friend that is user using mobile device to unlock home) not validated by the reader device (property owner unlocks house from 9am- 5:00pm for already registered users as “friend” that is granted access by property owner for desired time to unlock house)), (Par. (0130-0131); a friend device not validated by the reader device (server 609 verifies and authorized user of mobile device as friend not reader device (b-lock of door management platform))
the second terminal including an encryption key shared from the first terminal. (Par. (0131); encrypted security key is shared from administrator device to new user advice)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice to incorporate the teaching of Ho to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technologies and delivery service authentication of fast transactions, with the motivation of verifying entities access door locks and smart homes to secure the location of fast transactions and prevents theft or risks of users private goods. This eliminates security risks allows users of the system to aware, notified and easily identify authorized entities entering the property. (Ho. Par. (0003-0005, 0009 and 0012-0013))
Felice and Ho do not explicitly teach in response to the reader device supporting the fast transaction and the access level allowing access from a non-validated terminal, transmitting, to the second terminal, a cryptogram of the first terminal and an identifier (ID) of the reader device, wherein access of the second terminal to the reader device is allowed based on an ID of the second terminal and the cryptogram of the first terminal,
Wherein Dunjic teaches in response to the reader device supporting the fast transaction and the access level allowing access from a non-validated terminal, (Par. (0081-0082); the reader device supporting fast transaction (module to allow third party application access based on transaction data with a level of access)
transmitting, to the second terminal, a cryptogram of the first terminal and an identifier (ID) of the reader device, (Par. (0014); in response to allowing access (after successful authentication) transmitting user identity and cryptogram to device), (Par. (0084); transmitting of identifier of device and cryptogram
wherein access of the second terminal to the reader device is allowed based on an ID of the second terminal and the cryptogram of the first terminal, (Par. (0036); level of access based on cryptogram), (Par. (0083-0084, 0132); level of access based on identifier and cryptogram)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice and Ho to incorporate the teaching of Dunjic to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of fast transactions and controlled access, with the motivation of regulating access elements of confidential data using elements of identifier and cryptograms to successfully authenticate users. (Dunjic Par. (0002 and 0014))
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Felice, Ho and Dunjic teach the method of claim 1, Ho further teaches wherein the first information and second information are included in an authorization command for the first terminal ((Par. (0102 and 0123-0124); first information and second information (security data with message, user status, account etc.) is included in the authorization command (security data with message, user status, account etc. used to verify if mobile device is validated as owner)),
or an update request for access information of the first terminal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice to incorporate the teaching of Ho to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technologies and delivery service authentication of fast transactions, with the motivation of identifying authorized user and granting access and permission based on received data for effective verification process. (Ho. Par. (0105))
In regards to Claim 11, Felice teaches a first device in a wireless communication system, the first terminal comprising: (Par. (0015, 0087-0088, 0111, 0113); first device (deliver agent with wireless device)), (Par. (0009); wireless connected system))
a transceiver; and (Par. (0035); transceiver))
at least one processor coupled with the transceiver and configured to: (Par. (0081); processor), (Par. (0035); transceiver))
receive, from a reader device, first information on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction and (Par. (0111, 0113); receiving from a reader device (delivery agent receiving from point of delivery) first information (delivery data) on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction (deliver data that includes access data, lock-alarm data for delivery)), (Par. (0054-0056 and 0022); reader device (point of deliver as home with smart lock),(Par. (0117-0118); first information on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction (delivery data is accessed to determine if delivery agent can have access/system unlocked to deliver package), (Examiner note: In the instant application on Par. (00112) states a fast transaction to be “a transaction shortened such that a deliverer can quickly access a specific gate or reader at a common entrance of a multi-dwelling unit or at a public place”, therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted that first information refers to data allowing a deliverer to deliver a package corresponding to a customer order/transaction; Examiner further states the instant application refers to “reader device” on Par. (0056) to be “door locks or gates for entry/exit”, therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted that reader device be a home or point of delivery that contains smart locks or entryway for delivery)
determine a method in which the reader device validates a second terminal, based on the first information and second information, (Figure 5 labels 560, 564, 568, 572 and Par. (0116-0120); reader device (point of delivery) identifies delivery agent and verifies/authenticates the second device (delivery agent) based on first information (delivery data)), (Par. (0111, 0113); second information (deliver data that includes access data, lock-alarm data for delivery))
Felice does not explicitly teach second information on an access level of the reader device in response to the reader device supporting the fast transaction and the access level allowing access from a non-validated terminal, transmit, to the second terminal, a cryptogram of the first terminal and an identifier (ID) of the reader device, wherein access of the second terminal to the reader device is allowed based on an ID of the second terminal and the cryptogram of the first terminal, wherein the first terminal is a terminal validated by the reader device, and wherein the second terminal is a terminal not validated by the reader device, the second terminal including an encryption key shared from the first terminal.
Wherein Ho teaches second information on an access level of the reader device (Par. (0197); second information (photo of person, badge etc.) on an access level of the reader device (delivery company being verified and authentic to deliver to home with access) (Par. (0197 and 0201); reader device (door management platform of home owner) receives first information that includes access level (information and data of deliver)), (Par. (0376); reader device access level (high low and moderate trust level from resident of house with corresponding high/low authentication for access/unlocking of home), (Par. (0108-0109); reader’s device (door management platform associated with locking device)), (Par. (0382-0383) reader’s device’s (door management platform with locking device) access level (notification of untrusted individuals around the neighborhood and in proximity with heighten authentication requirements)),(Examiner Note: In the instant application on Par. (00112) the specification defines “based on access level” to be how quickly can the deliverer access a specific gate and on Par. (00118) the specification defines access level of reader to be security level/ reliability associated with a low medium or high ranking for authorized devices to have access. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as a trust level associated with the reader device with a trust rule and level as well as high security level (heighten authentication requirement) around the neighborhood))
wherein the first terminal is a terminal validated by the reader device, and (Par. (0084); reader device (door management platform with b-lock door)), (Figure 1A label 101A , 102Aand 107A; reader device (door with b-lock associated with door management platform) with first device is an owner device (owner device 102A)), (Par. (0104-0105); reader device (b-lock door management platform) verifies and validates first device is an owner device (mobile device of owner))
wherein the second terminal is a terminal not validated by the reader device, (Figure 8A labels 602A and 602B- (first and second mobile device)) (Par. (0131); second device (mobile device 602B registers as new user)) (Par. 0127-0130); second device (mobile device 602A ) is a friend device (friend that is user using mobile device to unlock home) not validated by the reader device (property owner unlocks house from 9am- 5:00pm for already registered users as “friend” that is granted access by property owner for desired time to unlock house)), (Par. (0130-0131); a friend device not validated by the reader device (server 609 verifies and authorized user of mobile device as friend not reader device (b-lock of door management platform))
the second terminal including an encryption key shared from the first terminal. (Par. (0131); encrypted security key is shared from administrator device to new user advice)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice to incorporate the teaching of Ho to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technologies and delivery service authentication of fast transactions, with the motivation of verifying entities access door locks and smart homes to secure the location of fast transactions and prevents theft or risks of users private goods. This eliminates security risks allows users of the system to aware, notified and easily identify authorized entities entering the property. (Ho. Par. (0003-0005, 0009 and 0012-0013))
Felice and Ho do not explicitly teach in response to the reader device supporting the fast transaction and the access level allowing access from a non-validated terminal, transmit, to the second terminal, a cryptogram of the first terminal and an identifier (ID) of the reader device, wherein access of the second terminal to the reader device is allowed based on an ID of the second terminal and the cryptogram of the first terminal,
Wherein Dunjic teaches in response to the reader device supporting the fast transaction and the access level allowing access from a non-validated terminal, (Par. (0081-0082); the reader device supporting fast transaction (module to allow third party application access based on transaction data with a level of access)
transmit, to the second terminal, a cryptogram of the first terminal and an identifier (ID) of the reader device, (Par. (0014); in response to allowing access (after successful authentication) transmitting user identity and cryptogram to device), (Par. (0084); transmitting of identifier of device and cryptogram
wherein access of the second terminal to the reader device is allowed based on an ID of the second terminal and the cryptogram of the first terminal, (Par. (0036); level of access based on cryptogram), (Par. (0083-0084, 0132); level of access based on identifier and cryptogram)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice and Ho to incorporate the teaching of Dunjic to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of fast transactions and controlled access, with the motivation of regulating access elements of confidential data using elements of identifier and cryptograms to successfully authenticate users. (Dunjic Par. (0002 and 0014))
In regards to Claim 15, claim 15 recites similar limitations to dependent claim 5 and the teaching of Felice and Ho and Dunjic address all the limitations discussed in dependent claim 5 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felice et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190279151, hereinafter referred to as “Felice”), Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786, hereinafter referred to as “Ho”), and Dunjic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210075791, hereinafter referred to as “Dunjic”) further in view of Rezaei et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200389490, hereinafter referred to as “Rezaei”)
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Felice, Ho, and Dunjic do not explicitly teach wherein decryption of the cryptogram is based on the ID of the second terminal, wherein, in case that the ID of the second terminal is not matched with an ID stored in the reader device, the cryptogram of the first terminal is decrypted by a private key of the reader device, and wherein, in case that the ID of the second terminal is matched with the ID stored in the reader device, the cryptogram of the first terminal is decrypted by a private key of the first terminal.
Wherein Rezaei teaches wherein decryption of the cryptogram is based on the ID of the second terminal, (Par. (0102-0103); decrypting cryptogram based on unique ID of device)
wherein, in case that the ID of the second terminal is not matched with an ID stored in the reader device, the cryptogram of the first terminal is decrypted by a private key of the reader device, and (Par. (0055, 0058); comparing identifiers stored then decrypting of cryptogram with cryptographic key) (Examiner Note: As stated in the 112(a) rejection above there is no support in the specification that states not matched ID then decrypting of cryptogram. Therefore the limitation “in case that …” will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as a checking of a match of ID’s then decrypting)
wherein, in case that the ID of the second terminal is matched with the ID stored in the reader device, the cryptogram of the first terminal is decrypted by a private key of the first terminal. (Par. (0055, 0058); comparing identifiers stored then decrypting of cryptogram with cryptographic key)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice, Ho, and Dunjic to incorporate the teaching of Rezaei to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of device authentication and access, with the motivation of preventing attacks and verifying access based on specific information. (Rezaei Par. (0001))
In regards to Claim 14, claim 14 recites similar limitations to dependent claim 4 and the teaching of Felice, Ho, Dunjic and Rezaei address all the limitations discussed in dependent claim 4 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felice et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190279151, hereinafter referred to as “Felice”), Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786, hereinafter referred to as “Ho”)
Dunjic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210075791, hereinafter referred to as “Dunjic”)
further in view of Le Saint et al. (U.S Pub. No. 0160065370, hereinafter referred to as “Le Saint”)
In regards to Claim 6, Felice teaches a method performed by a reader device in a wireless communication system, (Figure 1 label 136, 132; reader device (point of delivery home with smart lock and wi-fi)), (par. (0015-0017); reader device in a wireless communication system ((wireless communication of devices)), (Par. (0022-0023); reader device (point of deliver house with smart lock))
the method comprising: transmitting, to a first terminal, first information on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction and (Par. (0111, 0113); transmitting to a first device (point of delivery transmitting to delivery agent receiving) first information (delivery data) on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction (deliver data that includes access data, lock-alarm data for delivery)), (Par. (0054-0056 and 0022); reader device (point of deliver as home with smart lock),(Par. (0117-0118); first information on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction (delivery data is accessed to determine if delivery agent can have access/system unlocked to deliver package), (Examiner note: In the instant application on Par. (00112) states a fast transaction to be “a transaction shortened such that a deliverer can quickly access a specific gate or reader at a common entrance of a multi-dwelling unit or at a public place”, therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted that first information refers to data allowing a deliverer to deliver a package corresponding to a customer order/transaction; Examiner further states the instant application refers to “reader device” on Par. (0056) to be “door locks or gates for entry/exit”, therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted that reader device be a home or point of delivery that contains smart locks or entryway for delivery)
wherein a method in which the reader device validates a second terminal is based on the first information and the second information; (Figure 5 labels 560, 564, 568, 572 and Par. (0116-0120); reader device (point of delivery) identifies delivery agent and verifies/authenticates the second device (delivery agent) based on first information (delivery data)), (Par. (0197); second information (photo of user, badge etc. for authentication)
in response to the reader device supporting the fast transaction and the access level allowing access from a non-validated terminal, ((Par. (0111, 0113); receiving from a reader device (delivery agent receiving from point of delivery) first information (delivery data) on whether the reader device supports a fast transaction (deliver data that includes access data, lock-alarm data for delivery)
transmitting, to a second device terminal, an authorization command for requesting the fast transaction, based on the first information and second information, (Par. (0055, 0073, 0111); transmitting, to a second device (delivery agent receiving data and authorization) authorization command, based on the first information (authorization based on delivery data)) , (Par. (0090-0092); home network transmits authorization command (request) to second device (delivery agent) for unlocking/disarming home based on first information (delivery data)), (Par. (0111,0113); second information (deliver data that includes access data, lock-alarm data for delivery))
Felice does not explicitly teach second information on an access level of the reader device, wherein the authorization command includes at least one an ephemeral public key of the reader device or an identifier (ID) of the reader device; and receiving, from the second terminal, a response to the authorization command, wherein the response includes a cryptogram of the first terminal and an ID of the second terminal, wherein access of the second terminal to the reader device is allowed based on the ID of the second terminal and the cryptogram of the first terminal, wherein the first terminal is an owner terminal validated by the reader device, and wherein the second terminal is a friend terminal not validated by the reader device, the second terminal including an encryption key shared from the first terminal.
Wherein Ho teaches second information on an access level of the reader device ((Par. (0197); second information (photo of person, badge etc.) on an access level of the reader device (delivery company being verified and authentic to deliver to home with access) (Par. (0197 and 0201); reader device (door management platform of home owner) receives first information that includes access level (information and data of deliver)), (Par. (0376); reader device access level (high low and moderate trust level from resident of house with corresponding high/low authentication for access/unlocking of home), (Par. (0108-0109); reader’s device (door management platform associated with locking device)), (Par. (0382-0383) reader’s device’s (door management platform with locking device) access level (notification of untrusted individuals around the neighborhood and in proximity with heighten authentication requirements)),(Examiner Note: In the instant application on Par. (00112) the specification defines “based on access level” to be how quickly can the deliverer access a specific gate and on Par. (00118) the specification defines access level of reader to be security level/ reliability associated with a low medium or high ranking for authorized devices to have access. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as a trust level associated with the reader device with a trust rule and level as well as high security level (heighten authentication requirement) around the neighborhood))
wherein the first terminal is an owner terminal validated by the reader device, and (Par. (0084); reader device (door management platform with b-lock door)), (Figure 1A label 101A , 102Aand 107A; reader device (door with b-lock associated with door management platform) with first device is an owner device (owner device 102A)), (Par. (0104-0105); reader device (b-lock door management platform) verifies and validates first device is an owner device (mobile device of owner))
wherein the second terminal is a friend terminal not validated by the reader device, (Figure 8A labels 602A and 602B- (first and second mobile device)) (Par. (0131); second device (mobile device 602B registers as new user)) (Par. 0127-0130); second device (mobile device 602A ) is a friend device (friend that is user using mobile device to unlock home) not validated by the reader device (property owner unlocks house from 9am- 5:00pm for already registered users as “friend” that is granted access by property owner for desired time to unlock house)), (Par. (0130-0131); a friend device not validated by the reader device (server 609 verifies and authorized user of mobile device as friend not reader device (b-lock of door management platform))
the second terminal including an encryption key shared from the first terminal. (Par. (0131); encrypted security key is shared from administrator device to new user advice)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice to incorporate the teaching of Ho to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technologies, delivery service authentication of fast transactions and authentication of devices, with the motivation of verifying entities access door locks and smart homes to secure the location of fast transactions and prevents theft or risks of users private goods. This eliminates security risks allows users of the system to aware, notified and easily identify authorized entities entering the property. (Ho. Par. (0003-0005, 0009 and 0012-0013))
Felice and Ho do not explicitly teach in response to the reader device supporting the fast transaction and the access level allowing access from a non-validated terminal, transmitting, to a second device terminal, an authorization command for requesting the fast transaction, based on the first information and second information, wherein the authorization command includes at least one an ephemeral public key of the reader device or an identifier (ID) of the reader device; and receiving, from the second terminal, a response to the authorization command, wherein the response includes a cryptogram of the first terminal and an ID of the second terminal, wherein access of the second terminal to the reader device is allowed based on the ID of the second terminal and the cryptogram of the first terminal,
Wherein Dunjic teaches receiving, from the second terminal, a response to the authorization command, wherein the response includes a cryptogram of the first terminal and an ID of the second terminal, (Par. (0014);receiving a response to request for allowing access (after successful authentication) transmitting and receiving user identity and cryptogram to device), (Par. (0084); transmitting and receiving of identifier of device and cryptogram
wherein access of the second terminal to the reader device is allowed based on the ID of the second terminal and the cryptogram of the first terminal, (Par. (0036); level of access based on cryptogram), (Par. (0083-0084, 0132); level of access based on identifier and cryptogram)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice and Ho to incorporate the teaching of Dunjic to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of fast transactions and controlled access, with the motivation of regulating access elements of confidential data using elements of identifier and cryptograms to successfully authenticate users. (Dunjic Par. (0002 and 0014))
Felice, Ho and Dunjic do not explicitly teach wherein the authorization command includes at least one an ephemeral public key of the reader device or an identifier (ID) of the reader device; and
Wherein Le Saint teaches wherein the authorization command includes at least one an ephemeral public key of the reader device or an identifier (ID) of the reader device; and (Par. (0166); request with ephemeral public key of user device and user device identifier)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice, Ho and Dunjic to incorporate the teaching of Le Saint to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of fast transactions and controlled access, with the motivation of preventing compromise on user transaction and safeguarding the security using cryptograms. (Le Saint Par. (0002-0003))
In regards to Claim 10, the combination of Felice, Ho, Dunjic and Le Saint teach the method of claim 6, Ho further teaches wherein the first information and second information are included in an authorization command for the first terminal ((Par. (0102 and 0123-0124); first information and second information (security data with message, user status, account etc.) is included in the authorization command (security data with message, user status, account etc. used to verify if mobile device is validated as owner)),
or an update request for access information of the first terminal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice, Dunjic and Le Saint to incorporate the teaching of Ho to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technologies and delivery service authentication of fast transactions, with the motivation of identifying authorized user and granting access and permission based on received data for effective verification process. (Ho. Par. (0105))
In regards to Claims 16 and 20, claims 16 and 20 recite similar limitations to claims 6 and 16 and the teachings of Felice, Ho, Dunjic and Le Saint address all the limitation discussed in claims 6 and 16 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felice et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190279151, hereinafter referred to as “Felice”), Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786, hereinafter referred to as “Ho”) Dunjic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210075791, hereinafter referred to as “Dunjic”) and Le Saint et al. (U.S Pub. No. 0160065370, hereinafter referred to as “Le Saint”) further in view of Rezaei et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200389490, hereinafter referred to as “Rezaei”)
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Felice, Ho, Dunjic and Le Saint do not explicitly teach in case that the -ID of the second terminal is not matched with an ID stored in the reader device, identifying the ID of the second terminal as the ID of the second terminal and decrypting the cryptogram of the first terminal by a private key of the reader device; and in case that the ID of the second terminal is matched with the ID stored in the reader device, identifying the ID of the second terminal as the ID of the first terminal and decrypting the cryptogram of the first terminal-by a private key of the first terminal.
Wherein Rezaei teaches in case that the ID of the second terminal is not matched with an ID stored in the reader device, identifying the ID of the second terminal as the ID of the second terminal and decrypting the cryptogram of the first terminal by a private key of the reader device; and (Par. (0055, 0058); comparing identifiers stored then decrypting of cryptogram with cryptographic key) (Examiner Note: As stated in the 112(a) rejection above there is no support in the specification that states not matched ID then decrypting of cryptogram. Therefore the limitation “in case that …” will be broadly and reasonably interpreted as a checking of a match of ID’s then decrypting)
in case that the ID of the second terminal is matched with the ID stored in the reader device, identifying the ID of the second terminal as the ID of the first terminal and decrypting the cryptogram of the first terminal-by a private key of the first terminal. (Par. (0055, 0058); comparing identifiers stored then decrypting of cryptogram with cryptographic key)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Felice, Ho, Dunjic and Le Saint to incorporate the teaching of Rezaei to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of device authentication and access, with the motivation of preventing attacks and verifying access based on specific information. (Rezaei Par. (0001))
In regards to Claim 19, claim 19 recites similar limitations to dependent claim 9 and the teaching of Felice, Ho, Dunjic, Le Saint and Rezaei address all the limitations discussed in dependent claim 4 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Romailler; Yolan (U.S Pub. No. 20220191023) “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REGISTERING OR AUTHENTICATING A USER WITH A RELYING PARTY”. Considered this reference because it addressed authentication of user devices with credential and key exchanges.
Le Saint; Eric (U.S Pub. No. 20180026973) “ENHANCED AUTHENTICATION BASED ON SECONDARY DEVICE INTERACTIONS”. Considered this application because it relates to the transmitting and verification of cryptograms by decrypting with device ID’s.
NEWMAN; Kaitlin (U.S Pub. No. 20200106620) “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CRYPTOGRAPHIC AUTHENTICATION OF CONTACTLESS CARDS”. Considered this application because it smart devices and technologies and authentication of device with transactions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-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 Shiferaw can be reached on (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 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 https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/H.A.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights