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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 8/18/2026, in which, claim(s) 1-15 are pending.
Claim(s) 2, 9-10 and 14 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 16 is/are cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/5/2025, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 2/5/2025 is/are accepted by The Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7 and 15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “apparatus for controlling…” in claim 1, “apparatus is configured to…” in claim 6 and 7, and “code means for producing” in claim 15 are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The specification does not adequately disclose the structure to perform the functions of the claim. The corresponding structure must be more than a mere reference to a general purpose computer, microprocessor, specialized computer, or an undefined component of a computer system, software, logic, code, or black box element.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant should:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the 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 what corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
Please note that for computer-implemented "means" the corresponding structure to be disclosed is the algorithm(s) or software for performing the recited function.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11-3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broustis et al. (US 20130110920 A1; hereinafter Broustis) in view of Davis (NPL: A walk-through of an SSL handshake – IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 12, 13 and 15, Broustis discloses an apparatus for controlling a security establishment process between a first communication device (A) and a second communication device (B) over a transmission link, wherein the apparatus is adapted to (secure communication between initiator A and responder B ,in PAKE and PSKE [Broustis; ¶36, 57; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]):
transmit to the second communication device (13) a first preamble message (PreAB) including a first security establishment identifier (IDA), the first security establishment identifier being of the first communication device (A), and a first random value (RA) (initiator A transmitting message 1, which contains TCP information, public identifier of initiator, and random number chosen by initiator A [Broustis; ¶80-109; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]); and
receive from the second communication device (B) a second preamble message (PreBA) including a second security establishment identifier (IDB) of the second communication device (B) and a previous random value (RA') previously received at the second communication device (B) (receiving message 2 from responder B, which contains TCP information, public identifier of responder, and random number chosen by responder B [Broustis; ¶80-109; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]); and
set the second security establishment identifier (IDB) of the second communication device (B) as peer session identifier (401) for subsequent messages if the first random value (RA) is equal to the previous random value (RA') (both A and B compute xyP as the session key. Observe that A chose x randomly, and received yP in the second step of the protocol exchange. This allows A to compute xyP by adding yP to itself x times. Conversely, B chose y randomly, and received xP in the first step of the protocol exchange. This allows B to compute xyP by adding xP to itself y times. Note also that x is random but xP provides no information about x. Therefore, xP is a component of a key based on a random secret chosen by A. Likewise, y is random but yP provides no information about y. Hence, yP is a component of a key based on a random secret known only to B. Advantageously, xyP can serve as a session key [Broustis; ¶80-109; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]). Broustis does not explicilty discloses swapping of the security establishment identifier; however, in a related and analogous art, Davies teaches this feature.
In particular, Davis teaches using the port as identifier and swapping the port or session identifier, furthermore, TCP standard [Davis; ¶12, 24-25]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Broustis in view of Davis with the motivation to ensure both devices established a single secure establishment session alive.
Regarding claim 3, Broustis-Davis combination discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second preamble message (PreBA) includes a second random value (RB) (random number chosen by responder B [Broustis; ¶80-109; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 4, Broustis-Davis combination discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first communication device (A) comprises a commissioning tool configured to use the security establishment process to interact with the second communication device (B) for at least one selected from the group of commissioning, configuring, authenticating and authorizing or a security setup process (contains TCP client module for configuration random number chosen by responder B [Broustis; ¶80-109; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 5, Broustis-Davis combination discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the second communication device (B) is comprised in a medical device or a personal healthcare device or a smart home device (responder B device is of various smart devices [Broustis; ¶80-109; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 6, Broustis-Davis combination discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to run a password authenticated key exchange protocol to mutually authenticate the first and second communication devices (A, B) to each other and establish a secret (PAKE and PSKE [Broustis; ¶36, 57; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 7, Broustis-Davis combination discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to issue an error message or report an attack or drop a protocol or restart the protocol if the own random value (R_A, RB) is not equal to the received random value (dropped communication on error [Broustis; ¶42-44, 52-53; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Regarding claim 8, Broustis-Davis combination discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein preamble messages are exchanged between the first and second communication devices (A, B) or between the first communication device (A) or the second communication device (B) and a relay device in an initial device discovery phase (time delay and respond period[Broustis; ¶42-44, 52-53; Figs. 3-4 and associated texts]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights