DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-40 have been examined.
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 .
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.
Priority
The current application claims foreign priority to 23307038.2, filed 11/23/2023, and also claims foreign priority to 2402393, filed 03/11/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16, 19-36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20180039990 A1 to Lindemann, hereinafter Lindemann.
Regarding claim 1, Lindemann teaches a method of authenticating a first device to a second device, comprising:
generating a signature comprising a first analog signal of said first device; and using the first analog signal to perform an authentication of the first device to the second device (paragraph 148, “the client device generates a signature, signs the score/assurance level and sends it to the relying party 250 for final authentication”, paragraphs 160, 166, 308, “analog voice signal” and 422, “generate a signature associated with each of the N new device public keys”).
Regarding claim 2, Lindemann teaches wherein said signature corresponds to a time variation of at least one physical quantity associated with said first analog signal during the implementation of at least one specific operation (paragraphs 97, 98, 107, and 110, “to maintain a ‘legitimate user’ state within a defined time window after each of such successful authentication”, 112, 116, 117, and 124).
Regarding claim 3, Lindemann teaches placing the first device in a secure mode during the implementation of said at least one specific operation (paragraph 154, “securing managing attestation keys”, paragraph 166, 226, and 240, “the adaptive authentication policy engine 2345 may specifically identify the desired mode(s) of authentication based on the authentication rules implemented for the current transaction and the risk associated with the client”).
Regarding claim 4, Lindemann teaches wherein said at least one specific operation is an implementation of an electronic function or a program (paragraph 95, “performs one or more operations”, paragraph 108, “registration operation” and “authentication operation”, and paragraph 228, “the ‘matching’ operations are performed”).
Regarding claim 5, Lindemann teaches using at least one circuit for measuring said first analog signal to obtain said signature (paragraphs 613 and 626).
Regarding claim 6, Lindemann teaches wherein said at least one circuit for measuring is a circuit part of said first device (paragraphs 613 and 626).
Regarding claim 7, Lindemann teaches wherein said at least one circuit for measuring is a circuit part of said second device (paragraphs 613 and 626).
Regarding claim 8, Lindemann teaches wherein said at least one circuit for measuring is a circuit part of a third electronic device external to said first and second devices (paragraphs 613 and 626).
Regarding claim 9, Lindemann teaches verifying said signature by said second device using at least one signature model (paragraph 160, “verify the signature”, and paragraphs 369 and 397, “to generate signatures, verify signatures, and/or encrypt communication between the clients 3600-3602 and the relying party 3650”).
Regarding claim 10, Lindemann teaches verifying said signature by said second device by comparing the signature with at least one signature model (paragraph 160, “verify the signature”, and paragraphs 369 and 397, “to generate signatures, verify signatures, and/or encrypt communication between the clients 3600-3602 and the relying party 3650”).
Regarding claim 11, Lindemann teaches verifying said signature by said second device by extracting data from said signature (paragraph 2, “extraction module 103”, paragraph 6, “silent authenticators may rely on information extracted from the user’s device without interaction by the user (e.g., sending a Machine-ID)”, paragraph 160, “verify the signature”, and paragraphs 261, 262, 302, 369 and 397, “to generate signatures, verify signatures, and/or encrypt communication between the clients 3600-3602 and the relying party 3650”).
Regarding claim 12, Lindemann teaches wherein verifying comprises using a neural network (paragraph 308).
Regarding claim 13, Lindemann teaches wherein said neural network has been trained based on data representing signature models (paragraph 308).
Regarding claim 14, Lindemann teaches encrypting said signature for transmission between the first and second devices (paragraphs 108, 125, 345, and 397, “to generate signatures, verify signatures, and/or encrypt communication between the clients 3600-3602 and the relying party 3650”).
Regarding claim 15, Lindemann teaches wherein the authentication is of verifier/prover type (paragraphs 148 and 240).
Regarding claim 16, Lindemann teaches using a signature of at least one second analog signal of said first device for the authentication (paragraph 148, “the client device generates a signature, signs the score/assurance level and sends it to the relying party 250 for final authentication”, paragraphs 160, 166, and 308, “analog voice signal”).
Regarding claim 19, Lindemann discloses an electronic device configured as the first device in the method according to claim 1 (paragraph 66-68, “new client device” and “trusted client device”, paragraph 69, “synchronizing private data between devices”, paragraph 91, “client devices”, and paragraph 102, “authentication devices 220-221”).
Regarding claim 20, Lindemann discloses an electronic device configured as the second device in the method according to claim 1 (paragraph 66-68, “new client device” and “trusted client device”, paragraph 69, “synchronizing private data between devices”, paragraph 91, “client devices”, and paragraph 102, “authentication devices 220-221”).
Regarding claim 21, Lindemann discloses a system, comprising:
a first device (paragraph 66-68, “new client device” and “trusted client device”, paragraph 69, “synchronizing private data between devices”, paragraph 91, “client devices”, and paragraph 102, “authentication devices 220-221”);
a second device (paragraph 66-68, “new client device” and “trusted client device”, paragraph 69, “synchronizing private data between devices”, paragraph 91, “client devices”, and paragraph 102, “authentication devices 220-221”);
and an authentication system wherein a signature of a first analog signal of said first device is used for authenticating the first device to said second device (paragraph 148, “the client device generates a signature, signs the score/assurance level and sends it to the relying party 250 for final authentication”, paragraphs 160, 166, 308 and 422, “generate a signature associated with each of the N new device public keys”).
Regarding claim 22, Lindemann discloses wherein said signature corresponds to a time variation of at least one physical quantity associated with said first analog signal during the implementation of at least one specific operation (paragraphs 97, 98, 107, and 110, “to maintain a ‘legitimate user’ state within a defined time window after each of such successful authentication”, 112, 116, 117, and 124).
Regarding claim 23, Lindemann discloses wherein said at least one specific operation is an implementation of an electronic function or of a program (paragraph 154, “securing managing attestation keys”, paragraph 166, 226, and 240, “the adaptive authentication policy engine 2345 may specifically identify the desired mode(s) of authentication based on the authentication rules implemented for the current transaction and the risk associated with the client”).
Regarding claim 24, Lindemann discloses at least one circuit configured to obtain said signature by measuring said first analog signal (paragraphs 613 and 626).
Regarding claim 25, Lindemann discloses wherein said at least one circuit is part of said first device (paragraphs 613 and 626).
Regarding claim 26, Lindemann discloses wherein said at least one circuit is part of said second device (paragraphs 613 and 626).
Regarding claim 27, Lindemann discloses wherein said at least one circuit is part of a third electronic device external to said first and second devices (paragraphs 613 and 626).
Regarding claim 28, Lindemann discloses wherein, during the implementation of said operation, the first device is in a secure mode (paragraph 154, “securing managing attestation keys”, paragraph 166, 226, and 240, “the adaptive authentication policy engine 2345 may specifically identify the desired mode(s) of authentication based on the authentication rules implemented for the current transaction and the risk associated with the client”).
Regarding claim 29, Lindemann discloses wherein said second device is configured to verify said signature by using at least one signature model (paragraph 160, “verify the signature”, and paragraphs 369 and 397, “to generate signatures, verify signatures, and/or encrypt communication between the clients 3600-3602 and the relying party 3650”).
Regarding claim 30, Lindemann discloses wherein said second device is configured to verify said signature by comparing it with said at least one signature model (paragraph 160, “verify the signature”, and paragraphs 369 and 397, “to generate signatures, verify signatures, and/or encrypt communication between the clients 3600-3602 and the relying party 3650”).
Regarding claim 31, Lindemann discloses wherein said second device is configured to verify said signature by extracting data from said signature (paragraph 2, “extraction module 103”, paragraph 6, “silent authenticators may rely on information extracted from the user’s device without interaction by the user (e.g., sending a Machine-ID)”, paragraph 160, “verify the signature”, and paragraphs 261, 262, 302, 369 and 397, “to generate signatures, verify signatures, and/or encrypt communication between the clients 3600-3602 and the relying party 3650”).
Regarding claim 32, Lindemann discloses wherein said second device comprises a neural network configured to verify said signature (paragraph 308).
Regarding claim 33, Lindemann discloses wherein said neural network has been trained based on data representing signature models (paragraph 308).
Regarding claim 34, Lindemann discloses wherein, when said signature is transmitted between the first and second devices, said signature is encrypted (paragraphs 108, 125, 345, and 397, “to generate signatures, verify signatures, and/or encrypt communication between the clients 3600-3602 and the relying party 3650”).
Regarding claim 35, Lindemann discloses wherein said authentication is of verifier/prover type (paragraphs 148 and 240).
Regarding claim 36, Lindemann discloses wherein a signature of at least one second analog signal of said first device is used for the authentication (paragraph 148, “the client device generates a signature, signs the score/assurance level and sends it to the relying party 250 for final authentication”, paragraphs 160, 166, and 308, “analog voice signal”).
Regarding claim 39, Lindemann discloses an electronic device configured as the first device in the system according to claim 21 (paragraph 66-68, “new client device” and “trusted client device”, paragraph 69, “synchronizing private data between devices”, paragraph 91, “client devices”, and paragraph 102, “authentication devices 220-221”).
Regarding claim 40, Lindemann discloses an electronic device configured as the second device in the system according to claim 21 (paragraph 66-68, “new client device” and “trusted client device”, paragraph 69, “synchronizing private data between devices”, paragraph 91, “client devices”, and paragraph 102, “authentication devices 220-221”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17, 18, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann as applied to independent claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20230120453 A1 to Rao et al., hereinafter Rao.
Lindemann teaches the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Lindemann is not relied upon to teach the claim limitations directed to “wherein said first analog signal comprises an excess current rejected by a current smoothing circuit of a circuit for powering said first device”. Rao teaches said claim limitations, as cited below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rao with the teachings of Lindemann in order to generate “a control signal corresponding to a load to cause the load to decrease power consumption or transfer to lessen the chance of the energy consumption exceeding the limit” (Rao – paragraph 252).
Regarding claim 17, Rao teaches wherein said first analog signal comprises an excess current rejected by a current smoothing circuit of a circuit for powering said first device (paragraphs 209, 228, 232, 250, 332, and 342).
Lindemann teaches the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Lindemann is not relied upon to teach the claim limitations directed to “wherein said circuit for powering said first device comprises an analog-to-digital converter configured to measure said excess current, said analog-to-digital converter being configured to store data into a memory”. Rao teaches said claim limitations, as cited below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rao with the teachings of Lindemann in order to generate “a control signal corresponding to a load to cause the load to decrease power consumption or transfer to lessen the chance of the energy consumption exceeding the limit” (Rao – paragraph 252).
Regarding claim 18, Rao teaches wherein said circuit for powering said first device comprises an analog-to-digital converter configured to measure said excess current, said analog-to-digital converter being configured to store data into a memory (paragraphs 108, 110, 111, 116, 118, 202, 218, and 250-252).
Lindemann discloses the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Lindemann is not relied upon to disclose the claim limitations directed to “wherein said first analog signal comprises an excess current rejected by a current smoothing circuit of a circuit for powering said first device”. Rao discloses said claim limitations, as cited below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rao with the teachings of Lindemann in order to generate “a control signal corresponding to a load to cause the load to decrease power consumption or transfer to lessen the chance of the energy consumption exceeding the limit” (Rao – paragraph 252).
Regarding claim 37, Rao discloses wherein said first analog signal comprises an excess current rejected by a current smoothing circuit of a circuit for powering said first device (paragraphs 209, 228, 232, 250, 332, and 342).
Lindemann discloses the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Lindemann is not relied upon to disclose the claim limitations directed to “wherein said circuit for powering said first device comprises an analog-to-digital converter configured to measure said excess current, said analog-to-digital converter being configured to store data into a memory”. Rao discloses said claim limitations, as cited below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rao with the teachings of Lindemann in order to generate “a control signal corresponding to a load to cause the load to decrease power consumption or transfer to lessen the chance of the energy consumption exceeding the limit” (Rao – paragraph 252).
Regarding claim 38, Rao discloses wherein said circuit for powering said first device comprises an analog-to-digital converter configured to measure said excess current, said analog-to-digital converter being configured to store data into a memory (paragraphs 108, 110, 111, 116, 118, 202, 218, and 250-252).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on form PTO-892 are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to device authentication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH L AVERY whose telephone number is (571)272-8627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/JEREMIAH L AVERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights