DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is response to communication: response to original application filed on 03/24/2025.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending in this application.
No IDS has been filed for this application.
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.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “main control device is configured for” or “controlled device is configured for” included in claims 11-17 are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Ceppi US Patent Application Publication 2017/0012964 (Ceppi).
As per claim 7, Ceppi teaches a device linkage control method applied to a controlled device, the method comprising: receiving a network connection request sent by a main control device, and establishing a network connection with the main control device (paragraphs 61-63 with receiving connection request from control devices to remotely control physical interaction devices and communication is then established); receiving token information sent by the main control device and verifying the token information and generating authorization login information after the verification is passed (paragraph 63 with checking the permissions of the control device, such as location of control device, user of control device, etc; for example, if token information is the location of nurse’s tablet, this location information is sent from control device for verification; see paragraph 65 with details on verification such as mac address of tablet, network context of control device, etc); sending the authorization login information to the main control device for enabling the main control device to log in the controlled device (see paragraph 64 wherein if control is authorized, token are generated and sent to control devices); receiving execution information sent by the main control device through the network connection (paragraph 64-68 with control device receiving commands from control devices); and performing a linkage operation according to the execution information (paragraphs 64-69 with control device controlling physical interaction device).
As per claim 8, Ceppi teaches receiving account information sent by the main control device, wherein the account information is sent to the main control device by an application control terminal; verifying the account information, and receiving an association request sent by the main control device; generating the token information after establishing an association with the main control device (see paragraph 56 and throughout with factors including user identification and verifying such information before grant of token; see also paragraph 65 with user identification, etc; see further paragraph 64 wherein if request is listed in database as beign authorized to be fulfilled, token is generated/sent; also see paragraph 65 with the request including mac address of tablet or hardware serial number, which is an association request sent by the control device).
As per claim 9, Ceppi teaches wherein the process of performing a linkage operation according to the execution information comprise: judging whether the execution information is the same as current execution information on a current operation being exected by the controlled device; if the execution information is the same as the current execution information, performing the linkage operation according to the execution information after performing the current operation; and if the execution information is different from the current execution information, ignoring or rejecting the execution information according to a pre-set execution strategy, or performing the linkage operation according to the execution information after performing the current operation (paragraphs 67-68 wherein physical interaction devices send tokens and requests for verification; see paragraph 68 wherein system verifies that particular tokens are currently authorized in association with particular command to particular physical interaction device from particular control device; see paragraphs 68 and 69 wherein if verified, linkage operation can be performed; actions are only allowed or performed if token is verified; also see parggraph 63 or 72 wherein control device is forbidden to perform certain actions if requests are not verified)
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) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceppi as applied above, in view of Woo US Patent Application Publication 2018/0121921 (Woo).
As per claim 10, Ceppi teaches wherein the token information is sent to the main control device so as to enable the main control device to log in the controlled device (see paragraph 64 wherein token is sent to control device to log in/control physical device).
Although Ceppi teaches generating a token, Ceppi does not explicitly teach wherein the token information is generated by the controlled device. This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As seen throughout Ceppi, the authentication/token generation may be performed by an authentication or token server (see paragraph 106). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wherein a different device may perform the same function. For example, see Woo (paragraph 69 wherein IoT/controlled device originally has an ID or key value; these values are then shared with authentication server to utilize as a challenge/seed later).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Qie with Woo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to enable safer mobile transaction by authenticating IoT devices (paragraph 9 of Woo).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qie et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0224299 (Qie), in view of Woo US Patent Application Publication 2018/0121921 (Woo).
As per claim 1, Qie teaches a device linkage control method applied to a main control device, the method comprising: acquiring detection information monitored by the main control device, and determining a linkage type corresponding to the detection information (abstract, paragraph 8, and throughout with IoT system receiving request to connect, a device ID, a security mechanism, and other information such as whether the IoT device is active); determining a controlled device required to perform a linkage operation based on a preset linkage parameter table and the linkage type, and acquiring address information and execution information of the controlled device from the linkage parameter table (see paragraphs 10, 11, and 14 with data structure which may include a table; see paragraph 17 wherein data structure includes device identifiers, security mechanisms, software installation packages, etc; see paragraph 26 wherein data structure may include a mac address; see also paragraph 54 wherein software installation package includes address of device); establishing a network connection with the controlled device according to the address information (see paragraph 16, claim 1, and throughout reference with establishing network connection with provided information); enable the main control device to log in the controlled device when token information is valid (abstract, paragraph 8, claim 1, and throughout, wherein after connection is authenticated, the system can log in and allow IoT device to publish data or subscribe to data from the device); and sending the execution information to the controlled device through the network connection, so that the controlled device performs a linkage operation according to the execution information (abstract, paragraph 8, claim 1 and throughout with IoT/controlled device connects to system and can perform linkage operations such as publishing data, subscribing data, receiving updates, etc.)
Although Qie teaches authentication connections before performing actions (abstract, claim 1, and throughout with authenticating connection data), Qie does not explicitly teach sending token information to the controlled device to verify validity of the token information; and receiving authorization login information sent by the controlled device. However, this would have been obvious. For example, see Woo, (abstract, paragraphs 66-68, and throughout, with server sending seed information to IoT device; iOT device sending authentication/otp information to server; and allowing IoT device to be controlled after authentication; see also paragraph 69 of Woo IoT/controlled device may send an ID or key value in advance to authentication server, and authentication server may use and send the key value as the seed/challenge;).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Qie with Woo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to enable safer mobile transaction by authenticating IoT devices (paragraph 9 of Woo).
As per claim 2, the Qie combination teaches receiving identification information and account information of the controlled device sent by an application control terminal (Qie paragraph 16 and claim 1 with IoT devices sending information such as device identifiers and security mechanisms); initiating a network connection to the controlled device according to the identification information, and logging in the controlled device using the account information (see paragraph 16, claim 1, and throughout with IoT system receiving information from IoT device and using such information to generate a connection); initiating an association request to the controlled device, and receiving the token information sent by the controlled device (obvious over Woo; see paragraph 69 wherein IoT device may share token values such as key value or ID to authentication server to generate an association request).
As per claim 6, the Qie combination teaches wherein the token information is generated by the controlled device when establishing an association with the main control device, and sent to the main control device so as to enable the main control device to log in the controlled device (obvious over Woo; see paragraph 69 wherein IoT device may share token values such as key value or ID to authentication server in advance for a challenge/response/verification to enable log-in).
Claim(s) 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qie et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0224299 (Qie), in view of Woo US Patent Application Publication 2018/0121921 (Woo), and further in view of 2017/0012964 (Ceppi).
Claim 11 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claims 1 and 6 above.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the Qie combination with Ceppi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to create more security and preventing attacks from cyber-attackers (paragraphs 5-6 of Ceppi).
Claim 12 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2 and 8 above.
Claim 13 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2 above.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 8 above.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claims 1 and 2 above.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 10 above.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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:
As per claims 3 and 4, although the above cited references teach many limitations of the claimed invention, the claims, as a whole, would not have been obvious over the prior art of record. See the references as applied above.
Claim 5 is allowable for the same reason as claim 4 based on its dependence on the parent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. 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).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights