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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The aforementioned claims are allowable in light of the terminal disclaimer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180332030 (Wu) in view of US 20170078269 (Han) further in view of US 20230096672 (Bhat).
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches or suggests a device comprising: a first memory configured to store a first customer identification value (¶ 27 customer ID stored in the status database (step S553));
a second memory (fig. 2, nos. 220, 250); and
an interface coupled to the first memory and the second memory (fig. 2, nos. 230, 260);
a determination that the first customer identification value does not match a second customer identification value read from a first field of a digitally-signed certificate (¶ 27 the customer ID of the decrypted data does not match the customer ID stored in the status database), wherein the digitally-signed certificate associates application data to the first customer identification value (¶¶ 24, 27, 30 certificate associates application data to customer ID).
Wu does not expressly disclose but Han teaches or suggests the second memory is configured to not allow application data to be written to the second memory in response to a determination (¶ 160 refrain from installing the application). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Wu’s determination and Han’s refraining to improve security.
Wu does not expressly disclose but Bhat teaches or suggests application data from a second field of a digital certificate (¶ 29). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Wu’s determination, Han’s refraining, and Bhat’s placement to consolidate data and application in the same certificate.
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches or suggests the device is further configured to output an alert in response to determining that the first customer identification value does not match the second customer identification value (error message 591).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180332030 (Wu) in view of US 20170078269 (Han) further in view of US 20230096672 (Bhat) and WO 2007121616 (He).
Wu does not expressly disclose but He teaches or suggests first customer identification value was written to first memory by a manufacturer of the device (description of steps S31, S51, and S81). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Wu’s determination, Han’s refraining, Bhat’s placement, and He’s writing because a manufacture may know its customers.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered. The applicant alleges shortcomings of Li. Li, however, has been replaced with Bhat to teach or suggest the limitations in combination with Wu and Han as aforementioned.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, Vendelbo verifies a customer id of a primary certificate (¶ 261).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any response to this Office action containing amended or newly presented claims should specifically point out support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571) 272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights