DETAILED ACTION
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority/Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of SWEDEN Application SWEDEN 2251284-2 filed on 11/04/2022 has been received on 04/10/2025.
Acknowledgment is made of domestic priority data as claimed by applicant application is a PCT/EP2023/080247 has been filed 10/30/2023.
Drawings
The drawing (Figure 1) is objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the description of each elements in the drawing as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 16-19. 22-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendra Trivedi et al. (US 2018/0189464, hereinafter Narendra Trivedi) in view of Avetisov et al. (US 2022/0255931, hereinafter Avetisov).
Regarding claim 16: Narendra Trivedi teaches: A method for providing a time reading, the method being performed by a system comprising a time server (Narendra Trivedi - a trusted time server), a mobile device (Narendra Trivedi - Platform services enclave (PSE) 230) comprising a secure element, and a time reader (Narendra Trivedi - application enclave 540), the method comprising:
synchronising a real-time clock in the secure element with the time server (Narendra Trivedi - [0139]: the apparatus further comprises means for reinitializing the real-time clock by synchronizing wall-clock time with a trusted time server);
letting the real-time clock run in the secure element (Narendra Trivedi - [0016]: Each application enclave can request a trusted timestamp, for example, in the context of a content licensing flow, as described above. The SGX platform trusted time service provides a platform services enclave (PSE) 130, which retrieves the timestamp from a hardware real-time clock (RTC) 112. In the example shown in FIG. 1, the platform services enclave (PSE) 130 uses converged security management engine (CSME) 103 to provide a secure communication channel to hardware such as real-time clock (RTC) 112);
sending, by the time reader, a current time request to the secure element via the mobile device; receiving, by the secure element, the current time request (Narendra Trivedi - [0023]: Each application enclave can request a trusted timestamp, [0024] Platform services enclave (PSE) 230 directly issues an instruction to real-time clock (RTC) 212. See also [0066]);
generating, by the secure element, a response, the response comprising a current time reading from the real-time clock (Narendra Trivedi - [0025] Upon receiving the trusted timestamp from real-time clock (RTC) 212, platform services enclave (PSE) 230 delivers the trusted timestamp to the requesting application enclave 240A, 240B, or 240C via a trusted communication channel between secure enclaves) ,
sending, by the secure element, the response, via the mobile device, to the time reader; receiving, by the time reader, the response from the secure element; and verifying, by the time reader, the response based on the cryptographic verification data (Narendra Trivedi - [0066]: In action 5.8, platform services enclave (PSE) 530 returns a response to the time request issued by application enclave 540 in action 5.1. The response includes a current timestamp and the nonce generated in action 5.7. In action 5.9, application enclave 540 verifies the response).
However, Narendra Trivedi doesn’t explicitly teach, but Avetisov discloses:
and cryptographic verification data, which comprises applying a cryptographic signature, and including, in the cryptographic verification data, proof of authentication of the secure element by the time server, wherein the proof of authentication comprises a cryptographic signature by the time server, applied to an identification of the secure element (Avetisov - [0117]: the authentication application 120 may pass data and signed data received from the TEE 103 to the server for verification. In some embodiments, the authentication application 120 may request the TEE 103 output signed data with a timestamp or include identifying information associated with a particular notification such that signed data may be considered valid for a particular notification or at a particular point in time to prohibit reuse);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Narendra Trivedi with Avetisov so that response data contain time information are also includes verification data. The modification would have allowed the system to enhance security.
Regarding claim 17: this claim defines a method claim that is broader than claim 16 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 18: Narendra Trivedi as modified teaches: wherein the synchronising comprises authenticating the time server (Narendra Trivedi - [0040]: platform services enclave (PSE) 330 synchronizes wall-clock time from a trusted time server to obtain a current timestamp).
Regarding claim 19: Narendra Trivedi as modified teaches: wherein the time reader is a credential reader for evaluating access to a physical space, and wherein the method further comprises:
interacting with the time reader using a credential stored in the mobile device, to allow the time reader to evaluate access to the physical space (Avetisov - [0251]: credentials for those web-services to which the mobile device 101 has registered by process 10A are stored in association with other data corresponding to the relying device 140 generated during process 400. In some cases, those credentials may be specific to authentications via the mobile device 101 to confer access to the web-services that relying device 140 may access).
Regarding claims 22-24: Claims are directed to apparatus/device claims and do not teach or further define the limitations recited in claims 17-19. Therefore, claims 22-24 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 17-19. Furthermore, Narendra Trivedi in Fig. 6 and para. [0063] discloses a processor 610, a memory.
Regarding claim 27: Claims are directed to computer readable medium claims and do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim 17. Therefore, claims 27 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim 17.
Claims 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendra Trivedi et al. (US 2018/0189464, hereinafter Narendra Trivedi) in view of Avetisov et al. (US 2022/0255931, hereinafter Avetisov) and Lavender et al. (US 2017/0272253)
Regarding claims 20 and 25: Narendra Trivedi as modified doesn’t explicitly teach but Lavender teaches: wherein the secure element is provided to be physically tamper-resistant (Lavender - [0059]: A secure element can be a tamper-resistant platform (e.g., a one chip secure microcontroller) capable of securely hosting applications, as well as their confidential and cryptographic data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Narendra Trivedi and Avetisov with Lavender so that tamper-resistant is provided. The modification would have allowed the system to be more secure.
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narendra Trivedi et al. (US 2018/0189464, hereinafter Narendra Trivedi) in view of Avetisov et al. (US 2022/0255931, hereinafter Avetisov) and NGUYEN et al. (US 2023/0081068).
Regarding claims 21 and 26: Narendra Trivedi as modified doesn’t explicitly teach but NGUYEN teaches: wherein the secure element is provided to be physically tamper-evident (NGUYEN - [0022]: A cloud HSM is a tamper-resistant and tamper-evident hardware device configured to securely manage, process, and store cryptographic keys).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Narendra Trivedi and Avetisov with NGUYEN so that a tamper-evident hardware device configured to securely manage, process, and store cryptographic keys. The modification would have allowed the system to be more secure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heitmann - US 7085276 B1 - he communications system components each have a clock generator, which needs to be synchronized, and a real time clock, where the clock generator both determines the transmission rate for communications data which are to be transmitted and prescribes the time base for the real time clock
Ruesch et al, US 20140281656 - US 20140281656 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
