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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggest amending the claims to include “and” between the last two limitations of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggest amending the claim to include a comma after the claim it depends upon (i.e. claim 2,). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “first and second devices configured to carry out a method of authentication” (claim 15) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Structural support for this limitation is discloses in applicant specification paragraphs 0059-0103.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recites the limitations "the generation, by the first device", “the supplying of the first element”, “the generation, by the second device”, “the supplying of the first”, “the generation.. of a session key”, “the generation… of a first code”, “the generation.. of a second public key”, “the deciphering”, “the supplying, by a near”, “the generation.. of the session key”, “the storage” and “the control”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For examination purposes, the claim limitation are interpreted as “a” instead of “the” (i.e. a generation).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the generation" in line 3, “the supplying” in line 4, “the deciphering” in line 6 and “the comparison” in line 7. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim limitation are interpreted as “a” instead of “the” (i.e. a generation).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the provision" in line 2, and “the entering” in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim limitation are interpreted as “a” instead of “the” (i.e. a provision).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the presentation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim limitation are interpreted as “a” instead of “the” (i.e. a presentation).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the BitCoin" in line 3, and “the range” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim limitation are interpreted as “a” instead of “the” (i.e. a provision).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the execution" in line 3, and “the first action” in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim limitation are interpreted as “a” or “an” instead of “the” (i.e. an execution).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the carrying out the first action" in line 2, “the ciphering” in line 3, “the deciphering” & “the comparison” in line 5 and “the stopping” in line 7. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim limitation are interpreted as “a” instead of “the” (i.e. a first action).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the supplying" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination the claim limitation is interpreted as supplying of a message.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the coordinate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination the claim limitation is interpreted as a coordinates.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the estimating" in line 1, “the time elapsed” in line 1, and “the receipt” in line 2. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim limitation are interpreted as “a” or “an” instead of “the” (i.e. an estimating).
Claim 13 use the term “and/or”. This term renders the scope of the claim language unclear because it is not clear whether all of the limitations are required or not, in order to fall within the scope of the claim. The use of "and" in the language would require all the limitations to be present in order to fall within the scope of the claim language. The use of "or" in the language would only require one of the limitations to be present in order to fall within the scope of the claim language. The use of "and/or" makes the applicants intended scope unclear because one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine whether or not all of the listed limitations are required or not. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to specifically point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention.
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) 1-4, 6, 10-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0140203) in view of Deleeuw et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0087949).
Regarding independent claim 1, PENG teaches a method of authentication between a first device and a second device, the method comprising: the generation, by the first device, of a second element, and their storage into a memory of the first device (PENG, page 23, paragraphs 0247 & 0251 and page 24, paragraphs 0265-0269; random number); the generation, by the second device, by application of a Diffie-Hellman protocol, of a first public key (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0260; security device generate public-private key pair); the supplying of the first public key to the first device and the storage of the first public key, in association with the first and second elements, into a memory of the first device (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0246, page 24, paragraphs 0261-0262 and page 30, paragraph 0355; terminal device obtains security device public- key); the generation, by the first device, of a session key, based on the second element and on the first public key, by application of a Diffie-Hellman protocol on an elliptic curve (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0246 and page 24, paragraph 0264 & 0267; terminal device generate session key); the generation, by the first device, of a first code, based on the second element, and its ciphering by the session key (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0247 and page 24, paragraphs 0265-0266 & 0268-0269; verification data; encrypted signature, random number [second element], and certification by the session key); the generation, by the first device, of a second public key (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0258; terminal device generate public-private key pair); the supplying, by a near-field communication, of the first ciphered code and of the second public key to the second device (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0248, page 24, paragraph 0271 and page 27, paragraphs 0307 & 0311; terminal device send verification/authentication data and public key to security device); the generation, by the second device, of the session key based on the first element and on the second public key, and the deciphering of the ciphered first code by means of the session key (PENG, page 23, paragraphs 0253-0254 and pages 24-25, paragraphs 0273-0277; security device generate session key and decrypt verification data); the storage, in a memory of the second device, of the deciphered first code (PENG, page 30, paragraph 0355); the control, by the second device, of a first actuator as a result of an authentication of the second device, or of a third device, by the first device and based on the first public key (PENG, page 22, paragraph 0234, page 24, paragraph 0250, page 25, paragraphs 0287-0288 and page 27, paragraphs 0307 & 0311; unlock/control security device).
PENG teaches a random number and public-private key pair (PENG, page 23, paragraphs 0247 & 0251 and page 24, paragraphs 0265-0269) but does not explicitly teach the generation, by the first device, of a first element and of a second element, and their storage into a memory of the first device; the supplying of the first element, via a user of the first device, to the second device; the generation, by the second device, based on the first element and by application of a Diffie-Hellman protocol, of a first public key.
Deleeuw teaches the generation, by the first device, of a first element, and their storage into a memory of the first device (Deleeuw, page 3, paragraph 0023, S1; g based on the value x); the supplying of the first element, via a user of the first device, to the second device (Deleeuw, page 3, paragraphs 0023-0025; deliver QRI with, S1; g based on the value x); the generation, by the second device, based on the first element and by application of a Diffie-Hellman protocol, of a first public key (Deleeuw, pages 3-4, paragraph 0027 & 0040; S2; g based on the value y; second context include public key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG with the teachings of Deleeuw to generate the public key based on information from the other device to provide the advantage of secure digital relationship between devices (Deleeuw, page 1, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 2, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1, however, Deleeuw teaches the method further comprising: the generation, by the first device, of a second code, based on the second element, and its ciphering it by the session key and the supplying, by near-field communication, of the ciphered second code to the second, or to the third, device; the deciphering, by the second, or the third, device, of the ciphered second code and the comparison of the deciphered second code with the deciphered first code; based on the comparison between the deciphered first and second codes, the control, by the second device or by the third device, of the first or of a second actuator (Deleeuw, page 5, paragraph 0041 and page 4, paragraphs 0030-0032; S3/QR3 based on mac based on the secret key and signed value; verify or authenticate QR3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG with the teachings of Deleeuw to generate the public key based on information from the other device to provide the advantage of secure digital relationship between devices (Deleeuw, page 1, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 3, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches the method wherein the control of the first actuator causes an action of locking, or of unlocking, of the second device and the control of the second actuator causes an action of unlocking, or of locking, of the second, or of the third, device (PENG, page 22, paragraph 0234, page 24, paragraph 0250, page 25, paragraphs 0287-0288 and page 27, paragraphs 037 & 0311; unlock/control security device).
Regarding claim 4, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches the method wherein the first public key is supplied, by the second device, to the first device via a non-secure near-field communication (PENG, page 24, paragraph 0262 and Deleeuw, page 3, paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 6, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1, however, Deleeuw teaches the method wherein the first element is a quick response code and wherein the supply of the first element to the second device, via the user consists of the presentation of the quick response code to a quick response code reader of the second device (Deleeuw, Figure 1, page 3, paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG with the teachings of Deleeuw to generate the public key based on information from the other device to provide the advantage of secure digital relationship between devices (Deleeuw, page 1, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 10, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches the method further comprising, prior to the carrying out of the first action: the ciphering, by the second device, of the first element, and the supplying of the ciphered first element to the first device; the deciphering, by the first device, of the first ciphered element and the comparison between the deciphered first element and the first element; and if the deciphered first element and the first element do not match, the stopping of the method (PENG, page 25, paragraphs 0283-0287; comparing second data corresponding to control data with first data and unlock/control security device).
Regarding claim 11, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1, however, Deleeuw teaches the method further comprising as a result of the generation of the first code, the supplying of a message authentication code to the second device (Deleeuw, Figure 1, page 3, paragraphs 0024-0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG with the teachings of Deleeuw to generate the public key based on information from the other device to provide the advantage of secure digital relationship between devices (Deleeuw, page 1, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 12, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches the method wherein the message authentication code is one of the coordinates, on the elliptic curve, of the session key (PENG, page 24, paragraphs 0290 & 0294).
Regarding claim 14, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 2, however, Deleeuw teaches the method wherein the first code is a concatenation of a first part of a value generated based on the second element with a second part of the value and wherein the second code is a concatenation of the first part of the value with a third part of the value (Deleeuw, Figure 1, page 3, paragraphs 0024-0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG with the teachings of Deleeuw to generate the public key based on information from the other device to provide the advantage of secure digital relationship between devices (Deleeuw, page 1, paragraph 0005).
Regarding independent claim 15, PENG teaches a system comprising a first and a second devices configured to carry out a method of authentication between a first device and a second device, the method comprising: the generation, by the first device, of a second element, and their storage into a memory of the first device (PENG, page 23, paragraphs 0247 & 0251 and page 24, paragraphs 0265-0269; random number); the generation, by the second device, by application of a Diffie-Hellman protocol, of a first public key (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0260; security device generate public-private key pair); the supplying of the first public key to the first device and the storage of the first public key, in association with the first and second elements, into a memory of the first device (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0246, page 24, paragraphs 0261-0262 and page 30, paragraph 0355; terminal device obtains security device public- key); the generation, by the first device, of a session key, based on the second element and on the first public key, by application of a Diffie-Hellman protocol on an elliptic curve (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0246 and page 24, paragraph 0264 & 0267; terminal device generate session key); the generation, by the first device, of a first code, based on the second element, and its ciphering by the session key (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0247 and page 24, paragraphs 0265-0266 & 0268-0269; verification data; encrypted signature, random number [second element], and certification by the session key); the generation, by the first device, of a second public key (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0258; terminal device generate public-private key pair); the supplying, by a near-field communication, of the first ciphered code and of the second public key to the second device (PENG, page 23, paragraph 0248, page 24, paragraph 0271 and page 27, paragraphs 0307 & 0311; terminal device send verification/authentication data and public key to security device); the generation, by the second device, of the session key based on the first element and on the second public key, and the deciphering of the ciphered first code by means of the session key (PENG, page 23, paragraphs 0253-0254 and pages 24-25, paragraphs 0273-0277; security device generate session key and decrypt verification data); the storage, in a memory of the second device, of the deciphered first code (PENG, page 30, paragraph 0355); the control, by the second device, of a first actuator as a result of an authentication of the second device, or of a third device, by the first device and based on the first public key (PENG, page 22, paragraph 0234, page 24, paragraph 0250, page 25, paragraphs 0287-0288 and page 27, paragraphs 037 & 0311; unlock/control security device).
PENG teaches a random number and public-private key pair (PENG, page 23, paragraphs 0247 & 0251 and page 24, paragraphs 0265-0269) but does not explicitly teach the generation, by the first device, of a first element and of a second element, and their storage into a memory of the first device; the supplying of the first element, via a user of the first device, to the second device; the generation, by the second device, based on the first element and by application of a Diffie-Hellman protocol, of a first public key.
Deleeuw teaches the generation, by the first device, of a first element, and their storage into a memory of the first device (Deleeuw, page 3, paragraph 0023, S1; g based on the value x); the supplying of the first element, via a user of the first device, to the second device (Deleeuw, page 3, paragraphs 0023-0025; deliver QRI with, S1; g based on the value x); the generation, by the second device, based on the first element and by application of a Diffie-Hellman protocol, of a first public key (Deleeuw, pages 3-4, paragraph 0027 & 0040; S2; g based on the value y; second context include public key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG with the teachings of Deleeuw to generate the public key based on information from the other device to provide the advantage of secure digital relationship between devices (Deleeuw, page 1, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 16, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches the system wherein the first device is a smartphone (PENG, page 13, paragraph 0181).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0140203) in view of Deleeuw et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0087949) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 10-12 and 14-16 above, and further in view of BROWNE et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0273959).
Regarding claim 5, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1.
PENG in view of Deleeuw does not explicitly teach the method wherein the first element is a digital code and wherein the provision of the first element to the second device, via the user, consists of the entering, by the user, of the digital code on a keypad of the second device.
BROWNE teaches wherein the first element is a digital code and wherein the provision of the first element to the second device, via the user, consists of the entering, by the user, of the digital code on a keypad of the second device (BROWNE, pages 3-4, paragraphs 0049 & 0055; user code inputted un keypad of electronic lock).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG in view of Deleeuw with the teachings of BROWNE to use a keypad to input user code to provide the advantage of improving electronic lock capabilities (BROWNE, page 1, paragraphs 0004-0006).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0140203) in view of Deleeuw et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0087949) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 10-12 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Struttmann (US Pub No. 2017/0364450).
Regarding claim 7, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1.
PENG in view of Deleeuw does not explicitly teach the method wherein the second element is a random value comprising a number N of words comprised in a standard dictionary of entropy-coding words, for example the BitCoin improvement proposal 39 wordlist, N being an integer in the range from 3 to 24.
Struttmann teaches wherein the second element is a random value comprising a number N of words comprised in a standard dictionary of entropy-coding words, for example the BitCoin improvement proposal 39 wordlist, N being an integer in the range from 3 to 24 (Struttman, page 14, paragraph 0138 and page 10, paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG in view of Deleeuw with the teachings of Struttmann to have a dictionary of coding words to provide the advantage of preventing attackers attempt to access and delete information (Struttmann, page 1, paragraph 0004).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0140203) in view of Deleeuw et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0087949) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 10-12 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Daly (US Pub No. 2021/0326410).
Regarding claim 8, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1.
PENG in view of Deleeuw does not explicitly teach the method wherein the session key is deleted from the first and second devices as a result of the execution of the first action, and wherein the session key is generated again, by the first device and then by the second, or the third, device, as a result of the authentication of the second, or of the third, device by the first device.
Daly teaches wherein the session key is deleted from the first and second devices as a result of the execution of the first action, and wherein the session key is generated again, by the first device and then by the second, or the third, device, as a result of the authentication of the second, or of the third, device by the first device (Daly, page 14, paragraph 0194; key deleted and each new session a key is generated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG in view of Deleeuw with the teachings of Daly to generate new key for each session to provide the advantage of secure confidential communications prevention unintended interceptions of information (Daly, page 1, paragraph 0004).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0140203) in view of Deleeuw et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0087949) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 10-12 and 14-16 above, and further in view of CHUN et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0207938).
Regarding claim 9, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1.
PENG in view of Deleeuw does not explicitly teach the method further comprising, prior to the generation, by the first device, of the session key, the authentication of the second device, by the first device and based on the first public key and based on a master key.
CHUN teaches prior to the generation, by the first device, of the session key, the authentication of the second device, by the first device and based on the first public key and based on a master key (CHUN, page 2, paragraph 0020 and page 10, paragraph 0192).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG in view of Deleeuw with the teachings of CHUN to perform authentication based on a master key to provide the advantage of improving management of door locks (CHUN, page 1, paragraphs 0002-0008).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PENG et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0140203) in view of Deleeuw et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0087949) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 10-12 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Talwar et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0103551).
Regarding claim 13, PENG in view of Deleeuw teaches each and every claim limitation of claim 1.
PENG in view of Deleeuw does not explicitly teach the method further comprising, as a result of the supply of the first deciphered code and/or of the second ciphered code: the estimating, by the second, or the third, device, of the time elapsed between the sending, by the first device, of the ciphered code and the receipt, by the second device, of the ciphered code; the comparison, by the second, or the third, device, of the estimated elapsed time with a threshold value; and if the estimated elapsed time is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the stopping of the method.
Talwar teaches further comprising, as a result of the supply of the first deciphered code and/or of the second ciphered code: the estimating, by the second, or the third, device, of the time elapsed between the sending, by the first device, of the ciphered code and the receipt, by the second device, of the ciphered code; the comparison, by the second, or the third, device, of the estimated elapsed time with a threshold value; and if the estimated elapsed time is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the stopping of the method (Talwar, page 1, paragraph 0010 and page 8, paragraphs 0073 & 0082; terminating session when time elapsed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify PENG in view of Deleeuw with the teachings of Talwar to terminate session after time elapsed to provide the advantage of improving management of session (Talwar, page 1, paragraphs 0010-0011).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Imanuel (US Pub No. 2022/0335764).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAQUEAL D WADE whose telephone number is (571)270-0357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAQUEAL D WADE-WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407