DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendment filed September 08, 2026 for the application # 19/027,536 filed on January 17, 2026. Claims 1-21 are pending and are directed toward ONBOARDING SOFTWARE ON SECURE DEVICES TO GENERATE DEVICE IDENTITIES FOR AUTHENTICATION WITH REMOTE SERVERS.
Any claim objection/rejection not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claims 1-21 have been fully considered, but they are moot because of new grounds of rejection.
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, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bowman et al. (US 2012/0331287, Pub. Date: Dec. 27, 2012), hereinafter referred to as Bowman.
As per claim 1, Bowman teaches a system, comprising:
a key management server having a certificate generator (In another example, the key pair (G, g) of the service entity 134 is generated by the manufacturing server 104 on behalf of the service entity 134, and the manufacturing server 104 possesses the public key G 136 and the private key g 138, as shown in FIG.1, Bowman, [0031]); and
a registration portal coupled to the key management server (In one example, the service entity 134 may publish a device certificate to the portable electronic device 100, and when in the field, the portable electronic device 100 may use the device certificate to register with the service entity 134. In another example, the device certificates may be published to a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) server or other type of simple online database. Any devices seeking a certificate may be informed of the location of the database and how to look up the certificate. For example, when registering with the service entity 134, the portable electronic device 100 may provide a unique identifier to the service entity 134, where the unique identifier corresponds to a certificate serial number and/or subject name of a certificate. The service entity 134 could then perform a public lookup back to the LDAP directory of certificates in order to retrieve the correct certificate. Alternatively, the portable electronic device 100 may be able to retrieve its own certificate from the directory. Either case avoids having to push the device certificate to the portable electronic device 100. Bowman, [0082]);
wherein the key management server is configured to receive and store first information implemented into a component during manufacturing of the component (During the manufacturing process, each portable electronic device is assigned at least one identifier that uniquely distinguishes that portable electronic device from all the other portable electronic devices produced by that manufacturer. Also during the manufacturing process, portable electronic devices are assigned cryptographic data by the manufacturer or by a vendor to the manufacturer, such that the cryptographic data uniquely distinguishes a particular portable electronic device from all the other portable electronic devices produced by that manufacturer. Bowman, [0018]).
Claims 12 and 20 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection, and are met by the references as discussed above, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of US patent No. 11,101,984. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-21 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of US patent No. 11,101,984. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 11,101,984 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the US patent No. 11,101,984 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of US patent No. 12,267,416. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1-21 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of US patent No. 12,267,416. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of US patent No. 12,267,416 because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the US patent No. 12,267,416 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11, 13-19, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 1-21 are similar in scope or identical to allowed claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,101,984.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:00 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/OLEG KORSAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
