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 office action is in response to the application filed on 11/07/2024. In which,
claims 1-20 are pending and being considered, claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 are independent, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “disclosure” is present on line 1 of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term “Wi-Fi” on Par. (0058), (0075) and (0084) of the specification, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 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.
In regards to Claim 6 line 9 and Claim 16 line 12, the applicant recites the limitation “a device”, this is unclear as to which device the applicant is referring to as there is a first, second and reader device recited in the claims. This creates confusion if the applicant is referring to the first, second, reader device or a new embodiment of a device. The specification states on Par. (00247 and 00252)” In an embodiment of the disclosure, decryption of the cryptogram may be based on the second device’s identifier. [..] identify the identifier as the second device’s identifier, and decrypt the cryptogram, based on the reader device’s private key.”. Therefore it will be broadly and reasonably interpreted in light of the specification that “a device” is referring to the second device. Examiner suggest further amending the claims to clarify which device the limitation is referring to.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are being additionally rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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”) further in view of Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786, hereinafter referred to as “Ho”)
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)
identifying a method in which the reader device validates a second device, based on the first 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))
Felice does not explicitly teach the reader device’s access level; and wherein the first device is an owner device validated by the reader device, and wherein the second device is a friend device not validated by the reader device.
Wherein Ho teaches the reader device’s access level; and (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 device is an owner device 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 device is a friend device 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))
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))
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Felice and Ho teach the method of claim 1, Felice further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving of the first information further comprises: (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)),
Felice does not explicitly teach receiving, from the reader device, an authorization command regarding the first device, and wherein the first information is included in the authorization command
Wherein Ho teaches receiving, from the reader device, an authorization command regarding the first device, and (Par. (0083); reader device (electronic lock is b-lock of door management platform)), (Par. (0103-0105); receiving from the reader device (electronic lock of door management platform) an authorization command regarding the first device (sending security data to establish mobile device and verify identity of mobile device to be owner)), (Par. (0180); an authorization command regarding the first device (user request sent to electronic lock of door management platform)), (Figure 8B labels 836, 866 602B and 601; authorization command received by reader device (electronic lock 601) regarding first device (information regarding mobile device))
wherein the first information is included in the authorization command (Par. (0102 and 0123-0124); first 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)), ((Figure 8B labels 836, 866 602B and 601; first information (first device (mobile device 602B) sends code and personal data to reader device (electronic lock) in authorization command (in request to identify authorized user))
or the reader device’s update request for the first device’s access information.
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 device 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)
identify a method in which the reader device validates a second device, based on the first 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))
Felice does not explicitly teach the reader device’s access level, and wherein the first device is an owner device validated by the reader device, and wherein the second device is a friend device not validated by the reader device.
the reader device’s access level, and (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 device is an owner device 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 device is a friend device 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))
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))
In regards to Claim 15, the combination of Felice and Ho teach the first device of claim 11, Ho further teaches receive, from the reader device, an authorization command regarding the first device, and (Par. (0083); reader device (electronic lock is b-lock of door management platform)), (Par. (0103-0105); receiving from the reader device (electronic lock of door management platform) an authorization command regarding the first device (sending security data to establish mobile device and verify identity of mobile device to be owner)), (Par. (0180); an authorization command regarding the first device (user request sent to electronic lock of door management platform)), (Figure 8B labels 836, 866 602B and 601; authorization command received by reader device (electronic lock 601) regarding first device (information regarding mobile device))
wherein the first information is included in the authorization command (Par. (0102 and 0123-0124); first 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)), ((Figure 8B labels 836, 866 602B and 601; first information (first device (mobile device 602B) sends code and personal data to reader device (electronic lock) in authorization command (in request to identify authorized user))
or the reader device’s update request for the first device’s access information.
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))
Claim(s) 2 and 12 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 Le Bouthillier et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230116631, hereinafter referred to as “Le Bouthillier”) further in view of Wang et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230353450, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”)
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Felice and Ho do not explicitly teach transmitting, to the second device, second information comprising the first device’s cryptogram and the reader device’s identifier in case that the fast transaction is supported.
Wherein Le Bouthillier teaches transmitting, to the second device, second information comprising the first device’s cryptogram and (Par. (0006); transmitting second information (sensitive information) comprising the first device’s cryptogram (sensitive information with cryptogram)) by second device receiving from the first device sensitive data containing 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 Hod to incorporate the teaching of Le Bouthillier to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of mobile devices and accessing of sensitive data, with the motivation of transmitting cryptograms to securely protect sensitive information address concerns of visibility and track data with extra steps and basing validity on matching. (Le Bouthillier Par. (0003-0005))
Felice, Ho and Le Bouthillier do not explicitly teach the reader device’s identifier in case that the fast transaction is supported.
Wherein Wang teaches the reader device’s identifier in case that the fast transaction is supported. (Par. (0062-0063); sends to the second device (electronic device) the reader device’s identifier (device identifier of home device)), (Par. (0263); in case that fast transaction is supported (device ID associated with fast transaction (delivery) of smart light bulbs and registration credentials associated with delivery))
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 Le Bouthillier d to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of fast transaction, deliver and smart technologies used to validate devices, with the motivation of authentication smart devices of home systems based on identifiers as an indication access for device and successful authentication (Wang Par. (0053, 0304))
In regards to Claim 12, the combination of Felice and Ho do not explicitly teach transmit, to the second device, second information comprising the first device’s cryptogram and the reader device’s identifier in case that the fast transaction is supported.
Wherein Le Bouthillier teaches transmit, to the second device, second information comprising the first device’s cryptogram and (Par. (0006); transmitting second information (sensitive information) comprising the first device’s cryptogram (sensitive information with cryptogram)) by second device receiving from the first device sensitive data containing 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 Hod to incorporate the teaching of Le Bouthillier to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of mobile devices and accessing of sensitive data, with the motivation of transmitting cryptograms to securely protect sensitive information address concerns of visibility and track data with extra steps and basing validity on matching. (Le Bouthillier Par. (0003-0005))
Felice, Ho and Le Bouthillier do not explicitly teach the reader device’s identifier in case that the fast transaction is supported.
Wherein Wang teaches the reader device’s identifier in case that the fast transaction is supported. (Par. (0062-0063); sends to the second device (electronic device) the reader device’s identifier (device identifier of home device)), (Par. (0263); in case that fast transaction is supported (device ID associated with fast transaction (delivery) of smart light bulbs and registration credentials associated with delivery))
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 Le Bouthillier d to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of fast transaction, deliver and smart technologies used to validate devices, with the motivation of authentication smart devices of home systems based on identifiers as an indication access for device and successful authentication. (Wang Par. (0053, 0304))
Claim(s) 3 and 13 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”), Le Bouthillier et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230116631, hereinafter referred to as “Le Bouthillier”) and Wang et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230353450, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) further in view of Sivalingam et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170213404, hereinafter referred to as “Sivalingam”)
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Felice and Ho do not explicitly teach wherein validation of the second device’s access credential is based on the cryptogram, and wherein whether to perform the validation for the access credential is based on the access level of the reader device.
Wherein Le Bouthillier teaches wherein validation of the second device’s access credential is based on the cryptogram, and (Figure 3 label 301 and Par. (0040); second device (workstation 301)) (Par. (0052); validation of the second device’s access credential (workstation 301 is validated by validating login credentials) access credential is based on the cryptogram (credentials of workstation 301 used to confirm if user has been authorized to access cryptogram)), (Par. (0058-0060 further disclose); additional security measures of determining second device (workstation 301) is authenticated based on access credentials (access token) with cryptogram (user is authenticated and permitted to decrypt cryptogram based on access token))
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 Hod to incorporate the teaching of Le Bouthillier to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of mobile devices and accessing of sensitive data, with the motivation of lining the credentials with the cryptograms to be able to authenticate more effectively and deny or grant the appropriate access. (Le Bouthillier Par. (0052))
Felice, Ho, Le Bouthillier and Wang do not explicitly teach the reader device’s identifier in case that the fast transaction is supported.
Wherein Sivalingam teaches wherein whether to perform the validation for the access credential is based on the access level of the reader device.(Par. (0019, 0020, 0023); validation for the access credential (authenticating of credentials) is based on the access level of the reader device (based on security level of doors, different requirements for each door to gain access)), (Par. (0021); based on access level of the reader device (areas and doors with restricted access and different levels))
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, Le Bouthillier and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Sivalingam to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technology and access levels of reader devices, with the motivation of implementing access levels for smart technologies such as door locks to grant specific access to authorized users and enhance access control systems for reader devices by unlocking the smart door to only authorized individuals. (Sivalingam Par. (0002-0003 and 0018-0019))
In regards to Claim 13, the combination of Felice and Ho do not explicitly teach wherein validation of the second device’s access credential is based on the cryptogram, and wherein whether to perform the validation for the access credential is based on the access level of the reader device.
Wherein Le Bouthillier teaches wherein validation of the second device’s access credential is based on the cryptogram, and (Figure 3 label 301 and Par. (0040); second device (workstation 301)) (Par. (0052); validation of the second device’s access credential (workstation 301 is validated by validating login credentials) access credential is based on the cryptogram (credentials of workstation 301 used to confirm if user has been authorized to access cryptogram)), (Par. (0058-0060 further disclose); additional security measures of determining second device (workstation 301) is authenticated based on access credentials (access token) with cryptogram (user is authenticated and permitted to decrypt cryptogram based on access token))
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 Hod to incorporate the teaching of Le Bouthillier to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of mobile devices and accessing of sensitive data, with the motivation of lining the credentials with the cryptograms to be able to authenticate more effectively and deny or grant the appropriate access. (Le Bouthillier Par. (0052))
Felice, Ho, Le Bouthillier and Wang do not explicitly teach the reader device’s identifier in case that the fast transaction is supported.
Wherein Sivalingam teaches wherein whether to perform the validation for the access credential is based on the access level of the reader device. (Par. (0019, 0020, 0023); validation for the access credential (authenticating of credentials) is based on the access level of the reader device (based on security level of doors, different requirements for each door to gain access)), (Par. (0021); based on access level of the reader device (areas and doors with restricted access and different levels))
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, Le Bouthillier and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Sivalingam to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technology and access levels of reader devices, with the motivation of implementing access levels for smart technologies such as door locks to grant specific access to authorized users and enhance access control systems for reader devices by unlocking the smart door to only authorized individuals. (Sivalingam Par. (0002-0003 and 0018-0019))
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”), Le Bouthillier et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230116631, hereinafter referred to as “Le Bouthillier”) and Wang et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230353450, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) further in view of Gordon et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160241402, hereinafter referred to as “Gordon”)
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Felice, Ho, Le Bouthillier and Wang do not explicitly teach wherein decryption of the cryptogram is based on the second device’s identifier.
Wherein Gordon teaches wherein decryption of the cryptogram is based on the second device’s identifier. (Par. (0006 and 0055); decrypting cryptogram with cryptogram being associated with mobile device ID)), (Par. (0066); second device (two different devices mobile device and access device))
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, Le Bouthillier and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Gordon to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of device authentication and access, with the motivation of implementing a decrypting step with cryptograms linked to identifiers to be able to communicate the correct device being used by the correct user and as a form of comparison to identify decrypted cryptogram data based on a linking identifier to provide confidence and effective validation. (Gordon Par. (0002 and 0055))
In regards to Claim 14, the combination of Felice, Ho, Le Bouthillier and Wang do not explicitly teach wherein decryption of the cryptogram is based on the second device’s identifier.
Wherein Gordon teaches wherein decryption of the cryptogram is based on the second device’s identifier. (Par. (0006 and 0055); decrypting cryptogram with cryptogram being associated with mobile device ID)), (Par. (0066); second device (two different devices mobile device and access device))
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, Le Bouthillier and Wang to incorporate the teaching of Gordon to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of device authentication and access, with the motivation of implementing a decrypting step with cryptograms linked to identifiers to be able to communicate the correct device being used by the correct user and as a form of comparison to identify decrypted cryptogram data based on a linking identifier to provide confidence and effective validation. (Gordon Par. (0002 and 0055))
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”) and Labdhe et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20250330324, hereinafter referred to as “Labdhe”) further in view of Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786, hereinafter referred to as “Ho”)
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 device, 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)
transmitting, to a second device, an authorization command, based on the first information; and (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))
wherein a method in which the reader device validates the second device is based on the first 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))
Felice does not explicitly teach receiving, from the second device, a response to the authorization command, wherein the response includes second information including a cryptogram and an identifier of a device, the reader device’s access level; wherein the first device is an owner device validated by the reader device, and wherein the second device is a friend device not validated by the reader device.
Wherein Labdhe teaches receiving, from the second device, a response to the authorization command, (Par. (0004); receiving validated authentication response based on authentication command (attempt)), (Figure 5 labels 506, 524; second device (online authenticator) sends to authentication device a response))
wherein the response includes second information including a cryptogram and an identifier of a device, (Par. (0004); authentication attempt includes cryptogram and device identifier that is approved and confirmation is sent an authentication response is received based on authentication attempt with cryptogram and device ID)),
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 Labdhe to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of a plurality of devices associated with transactions, with the motivation of implementing a verification step that is two-factor to prevent tampering and ensure reliability in less than secure locations to eliminate susceptibility and allow mobile devices conducting transactions to be secure. (Labdhe Par. (0003 and 0027-0028))
Felice and Labdhe do not explicitly teach the reader device’s access level; wherein the first device is an owner device validated by the reader device, and wherein the second device is a friend device not validated by the reader device.
Wherein Ho teaches the reader device’s access level; (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 device is an owner device 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 device is a friend device 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))
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 Labdhe 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))
In regards to Claim 10, the combination of Felice, Labdhe and Ho teach the method of claim 6, Felice further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the transmitting of the first information further comprises: (Par. (0111, 0113); transmitting (delivery agent receiving from point of delivery) of the first information (delivery data))
Felice and Labdhe do not explicitly teach transmitting, to the first device, an authorization command regarding the first device, and wherein the first information is included in the authorization command or the reader device’s update request for the first device’s access information.
Wherein Ho teaches transmitting, to the first device, an authorization command regarding the first device, and (Par. (0083); reader device (electronic lock is b-lock of door management platform)), (Par. (0103-0105); transmitting from the reader device (electronic lock of door management platform) an authorization command regarding the first device (security data to verify identity of mobile device to be owner) to user as owner device), (Par. (0180); an authorization command regarding the first device (user request sent to electronic lock of door management platform)),(Figure 8B labels 836, 866 602B and 601/60; authorization command received by reader device (electronic lock 601) regarding first device (information regarding mobile device) and reader device (electronic lock) sent authorization command granting authorization to user of electronic lock))
wherein the first information is included in the authorization command (Par. (0102 and 0123-0124); first 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)), ((Figure 8B labels 836, 866 602B and 601/609; (first device (mobile device 602B) receives authorization command from reader device (electronic lock) and server in authorization command (in request to identify authorized user an authorization is granted that mobile device is authorized user))
or the reader device’s update request for the first device’s access information.
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 Labdhe 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 16, Felice teaches a reader device in a wireless communication system, the reader device comprising: (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))
a transceiver; and (Par. (0035); transceiver))
at least one processor coupled with the transceiver and configured to: (Par. (0081); processor), (Par. (0035); transceiver))
transmit, to a first device, 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)
transmit, to a second device, an authorization command, based on the first information, and (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 request to second device (delivery agent) for unlocking/disarming home based on first information (delivery data))
wherein a method in which the reader device validates the second device is based on the first 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))
Felice does not explicitly teach receive, from the second device, a response to the authorization command, wherein the response includes second information including a cryptogram and an identifier of a device, the reader device’s access level, wherein the first device is an owner device validated by the reader device, and wherein the second device is a friend device not validated by the reader device.
Wherein Labdhe teaches receive, from the second device, a response to the authorization command, (Par. (0004); receiving validated authentication response based on authentication command (attempt)), (Figure 5 labels 506, 524; second device (online authenticator) sends to authentication device a response))
wherein the response includes second information including a cryptogram and an identifier of a device, (Par. (0004); authentication attempt includes cryptogram and device identifier that is approved and confirmation is sent an authentication response is received based on authentication attempt with cryptogram and device ID))
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 Labdhe to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of a plurality of devices associated with transactions, with the motivation of implementing a verification step that is two-factor to prevent tampering and ensure reliability in less than secure locations to eliminate susceptibility and allow mobile devices conducting transactions to be secure. (Labdhe Par. (0003 and 0027-0028))
Felice and Labdhe do not explicitly teach the reader device’s access level, wherein the first device is an owner device validated by the reader device, and wherein the second device is a friend device not validated by the reader device.
Wherein Ho teaches the reader device’s access level, (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 device is an owner device 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 device is a friend device 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))
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 Labdhe 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))
In regards to Claim 20, the combination of Felice, Labdhe and Ho teach the reader device of claim 16, Ho further teaches transmit, to the first device, an authorization command regarding the first device, and (Par. (0083); reader device (electronic lock is b-lock of door management platform)), (Par. (0103-0105); transmitting from the reader device (electronic lock of door management platform) an authorization command regarding the first device (security data to verify identity of mobile device to be owner) to user as owner device), (Par. (0180); an authorization command regarding the first device (user request sent to electronic lock of door management platform)), (Figure 8B labels 836, 866 602B and 601/60; authorization command received by reader device (electronic lock 601) regarding first device (information regarding mobile device) and reader device (electronic lock) sent authorization command granting authorization to user of electronic lock))
wherein the first information is included in the authorization command (Par. (0102 and 0123-0124); first 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)), ((Figure 8B labels 836, 866 602B and 601/609; (first device (mobile device 602B) receives authorization command from reader device (electronic lock) and server in authorization command (in request to identify authorized user an authorization is granted that mobile device is authorized user))
or the reader device’s update request for the first device’s access information.
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 Labdhe 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))
Claim(s) 7 and 17 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”), Labdhe et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20250330324, hereinafter referred to as “Labdhe”) and Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786, hereinafter referred to as “Ho”) further in view of Osborn et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220237607, hereinafter referred to as “Osborn”)
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Felice, Labdhe and Ho do not explicitly teach wherein, in case that the fast transaction is supported, the cryptogram is the first device’s cryptogram.
Wherein Osborn teaches wherein, in case that the fast transaction is supported, the cryptogram is the first device’s cryptogram. (Par. (0088-0089); fast transaction is supported (verification of delivery device with contactless package) the cryptogram is the first device’s cryptogram (cryptogram being transmitted to user device)), (Par. (0055-0057); the cryptogram is the first device’s cryptogram (cryptogram with unique identifier of user account and is validated and decrypts cryptogram to extract unique identifier of user account with 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, Labdhe and Ho to incorporate the teaching of Osborn to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of devices associated with fast transactions, with the motivation of verifying the identity of devices in process of delivery or fast transactions to secure good to customers in secure manner. By utilizing a cryptogram the validation of transactions and payments are more effective by associating a device to a cryptogram and in turn being used as a form of comparison to validate accurate transaction. (Osborn Par. (0003 and 0067-0069))
In regards to Claim 17, the combination of Felice, Labdhe and Ho do not explicitly teach in case that the fast transaction is supported, the cryptogram is the first device’s cryptogram.
Wherein Osborn teaches in case that the fast transaction is supported, the cryptogram is the first device’s cryptogram. (Par. (0088-0089); fast transaction is supported (verification of delivery device with contactless package) the cryptogram is the first device’s cryptogram (cryptogram being transmitted to user device)), (Par. (0055-0057); the cryptogram is the first device’s cryptogram (cryptogram with unique identifier of user account and is validated and decrypts cryptogram to extract unique identifier of user account with 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, Labdhe and Ho to incorporate the teaching of Osborn to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of devices associated with fast transactions, with the motivation of verifying the identity of devices in process of delivery or fast transactions to secure good to customers in secure manner. By utilizing a cryptogram the validation of transactions and payments are more effective by associating a device to a cryptogram and in turn being used as a form of comparison to validate accurate transaction. (Osborn Par. (0003 and 0067-0069))
Claim(s) 8 and 18 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”), Labdhe et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20250330324, hereinafter referred to as “Labdhe”), Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786, hereinafter referred to as “Ho”) and Le Bouthillier et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230116631, hereinafter referred to as “Le Bouthillier”) further in view of Sivalingam et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170213404, hereinafter referred to as “Sivalingam”)
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Felice, Labdhe and Ho do not explicitly teach wherein validation of the second device’s access credential is based on the cryptogram, and wherein whether to perform the validation for the access credential is based on the access level of the reader device.
Wherein Le Bouthillier teaches wherein validation of the second device’s access credential is based on the cryptogram, and (Figure 3 label 301 and Par. (0040); second device (workstation 301)) (Par. (0052); validation of the second device’s access credential (workstation 301 is validated by validating login credentials) access credential is based on the cryptogram (credentials of workstation 301 used to confirm if user has been authorized to access cryptogram)), (Par. (0058-0060 further disclose); additional security measures of determining second device (workstation 301) is authenticated based on access credentials (access token) with cryptogram (user is authenticated and permitted to decrypt cryptogram based on access token))
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, Labdhe and Hod to incorporate the teaching of Le Bouthillier to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of mobile devices and accessing of sensitive data, with the motivation of lining the credentials with the cryptograms to be able to authenticate more effectively and deny or grant the appropriate access. (Le Bouthillier Par. (0052))
Felice, Labdhe, Ho, and Le Bouthillier do not explicitly teach wherein whether to perform the validation for the access credential is based on the access level of the reader device.
Wherein Sivalingam teaches wherein whether to perform the validation for the access credential is based on the access level of the reader device.(Par. (0019, 0020, 0023); validation for the access credential (authenticating of credentials) is based on the access level of the reader device (based on security level of doors, different requirements for each door to gain access)), (Par. (0021); based on access level of the reader device (areas and doors with restricted access and different levels))
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, Labdhe, Ho, and Le Bouthillier to incorporate the teaching of Sivalingam to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technology and access levels of reader devices, with the motivation of implementing access levels for smart technologies such as door locks to grant specific access to authorized users and enhance access control systems for reader devices by unlocking the smart door to only authorized individuals. (Sivalingam Par. (0002-0003 and 0018-0019))
In regards to Claim 18, the combination of Felice, Labdhe and Ho do not explicitly teach wherein validation of the second device’s access credential is based on the cryptogram, and wherein whether to perform the validation for the access credential is based on the access level of the reader device.
Wherein Le Bouthillier teaches wherein validation of the second device’s access credential is based on the cryptogram, and (Figure 3 label 301 and Par. (0040); second device (workstation 301)) (Par. (0052); validation of the second device’s access credential (workstation 301 is validated by validating login credentials) access credential is based on the cryptogram (credentials of workstation 301 used to confirm if user has been authorized to access cryptogram)), (Par. (0058-0060 further disclose); additional security measures of determining second device (workstation 301) is authenticated based on access credentials (access token) with cryptogram (user is authenticated and permitted to decrypt cryptogram based on access token))
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, Labdhe and Hod to incorporate the teaching of Le Bouthillier to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of mobile devices and accessing of sensitive data, with the motivation of lining the credentials with the cryptograms to be able to authenticate more effectively and deny or grant the appropriate access. (Le Bouthillier Par. (0052))
Felice, Labdhe, Ho, and Le Bouthillier do not explicitly teach wherein whether to perform the validation for the access credential is based on the access level of the reader device.
Wherein Sivalingam teaches wherein whether to perform the validation for the access credential is based on the access level of the reader device. (Par. (0019, 0020, 0023); validation for the access credential (authenticating of credentials) is based on the access level of the reader device (based on security level of doors, different requirements for each door to gain access)), (Par. (0021); based on access level of the reader device (areas and doors with restricted access and different levels))
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, Labdhe, Ho, and Le Bouthillier to incorporate the teaching of Sivalingam to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technology and access levels of reader devices, with the motivation of implementing access levels for smart technologies such as door locks to grant specific access to authorized users and enhance access control systems for reader devices by unlocking the smart door to only authorized individuals. (Sivalingam Par. (0002-0003 and 0018-0019))
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”), Labdhe et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20250330324, hereinafter referred to as “Labdhe”) and Ho et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200349786, hereinafter referred to as “Ho”) further in view of Chun et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220207938, hereinafter referred to as “Chun”)
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Felice, Labdhe and Ho teach the method of claim 6, Labdhe further teaches decrypting the cryptogram, based on the reader device’s private key. (Par. (0078); decrypting the cryptogram based on device private 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 to incorporate the teaching of Labdhe to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of a plurality of devices associated with transactions, with the motivation of implementing a decrypting step to safeguard confidential users information and improve security based on identifiers compared with keys. (Labdhe Par. (0019))
Felice, Labdhe and Ho do not explicitly teach in case that the identifier is not stored in the reader device, identifying the identifier as the second device’s identifier; and
Wherein Chun teaches in case that the identifier is not stored in the reader device, (Par. (0178-0181); when reader ID does not match the reader identifier)), (Par. (0103); is not stored in the reader device, (reader ID is stored in reader))
identifying the identifier as the second device’s identifier; and (Par. (0131-0135, 0177 and 0183); after matching determining second device (second door with ID)), (Par. (Par. (0180); after determining match of reader ID not being matched, identifying second door packet with door ID and ignoring))
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, Labdhe and Ho to incorporate the teaching of Chun to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technology and access levels of reader devices based on authentication, with the motivation of using identifiers of devices to identify users in security areas of locations such as building and determine based on comparing identifiers locked and unlocked states of smart device and in return leading to strong security. (Chun Par. (0036 and 0074-0077))
In regards to Claim 19, the combination of Felice, Labdhe and Ho teach the reader device of claim 16, Labdhe further teaches decrypting the cryptogram, based on the reader device’s private key. (Par. (0078); decrypting the cryptogram based on device private 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 to incorporate the teaching of Labdhe to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of authentication of a plurality of devices associated with transactions, with the motivation of implementing a decrypting step to safeguard confidential users information and improve security based on identifiers compared with keys. (Labdhe Par. (0019))
Felice, Labdhe and Ho do not explicitly teach in case that the identifier is not stored in the reader device, identify the identifier as the second device’s identifier, and
Wherein Chun teaches in case that the identifier is not stored in the reader device, (Par. (0178-0181); when reader ID does not match the reader identifier)), (Par. (0103); is not stored in the reader device, (reader ID is stored in reader))
identify the identifier as the second device’s identifier, and (Par. (0131-0135, 0177 and 0183); after matching determining second device (second door with ID)), (Par. (Par. (0180); after determining match of reader ID not being matched, identifying second door packet with door ID and ignoring))
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, Labdhe and Ho to incorporate the teaching of Chun to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of smart technology and access levels of reader devices based on authentication, with the motivation of using identifiers of devices to identify users in security areas of locations such as building and determine based on comparing identifiers locked and unlocked states of smart device and in return leading to strong security. (Chun Par. (0036 and 0074-0077))
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
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-my.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.
/HASSAN A HUSSEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2497