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 office action is in response to the communication filed on 5/16/2025.
Claims 1-15 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/16/2025 and 6/6/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied (e.g. “The disclosure pertains to”). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 “A wireless transmission device configured to perform a transmission…”.
Claim 1 “a wireless receiving node configured to wirelessly receive…”.
Claim 1 “wireless transmission device configured to generate a derived key…”.
Claim 4 “an ambient IoT device configured to harvest power…”.
Claim 5 “a power harvesting part configured to harvest power…”.
Claim 5 “a communication part configured for being powered…”.
Claim 6 “the wireless transmission device is configured to harvest the power…”.
Claim 8 “the wireless transmission device is configured to harvest power…”.
Claim 9 “ the wireless transmission device is configured to transmit…”.
Claim 10 “an authentication system for use …”.
Claim 10 “the authentication system is configured to receive…”.
Claim 10 “the authentication system is configured to access…”.
Claim 10 “the authentication system is configured to derive…”.
Claim 10 “the authentication system is configured to authenticate…”.
Claim 11 “the authentication system is configured to enable…”.
Claim 12 “the authentication system is further configured to…use information…to access…to derive…”.
Claim 12 “the authentication system is further configured to…use information…to derive…”.
Claim 13 “the network system is configured to…transmit…”.
Claim 14 “the authentication system is configured to enable…”.
Claim 15 “the network system is configured to perform a transmission…”.
Claim 15 “the wireless device is configured to wirelessly receive…”.
Claim 15 “the network system is configured to…access…”.
Claim 15 “the network system is configured to…generate…”.
Claim 15 “the network system is configured to…transmit…”.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The examiner has looked to the specification and cannot find sufficient structure, material, or acts clearly linked to the claimed functions. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the functions recited in the claims, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 recites “optionally encrypted with at least one of the derived key and a client key, stored in the wireless transmission device”. It is unclear whether or not the applicants intend for the claim to be limited by this language.
Claim 4 recites “an ambient IoT device”. The definition of “ambient” is “existing or present on all sides”. It is unclear how a device can be “ambient” or how a device can exist or be present on all sides.
Regarding claim 4, “A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.” See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “an ambient power source”, and the claim also recites “such as electromagnetic waves (radio waves, light), motion, heat, etc.” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 5, “A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.” See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “a power signal”, and the claim also recites “such as a radio signal” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “receiving data and/or instructions from the network”. The use of “and/or” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is not clear whether or not both data and instructions are required. If they are not both required, “or” would be appropriate. If they are both required then “and” would be appropriate. The use of “and/or” is confusing and raises doubt as to the scope of the claim language.
Claim 7 recites “optionally interpreted in the wireless transmission device as an acknowledgement of successful authentication of the wireless transmission device in the network”. It is unclear whether or not the applicants intend for the claim to be limited by this language.
Claim 8 recites “to harvest power from the signal containing the data and/or instructions from the network”. The use of “and/or” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is not clear whether or not both data and instructions are required. If they are not both required, “or” would be appropriate. If they are both required then “and” would be appropriate. The use of “and/or” is confusing and raises doubt as to the scope of the claim language.
Claim 11 recites “optionally encrypted by at least one of the derived key and a client key, wherein the authentication system is configured to enable transmission of the single message encrypted with the client key, if applied, to the client system”. It is unclear whether or not the applicants intend for the claim to be limited by this language.
Claim 12 recites “and optionally, the nonce to derive the derived key”. It is unclear whether or not the applicants intend for the claim to be limited by this language.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the new nonce information is optionally interpreted in the wireless transmission device as an acknowledgement of successful authentication of the wireless device in the network”. It is unclear whether or not the applicants intend for the claim to be limited by this language.
Claim 15 recites “to wirelessly receive the transmission and having a device identifier”. This is not grammatically correct and it is unclear how this is meant to be interpreted.
All rejected dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon one of the above addressed claims.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP4388354B2 (hereinafter referred to as Yato).
Regarding claim 1, Yato disclosed a wireless transmission device configured to perform a transmission to a network comprising at least a wireless receiving node configured to wirelessly receive the transmission and a further network system behind the wireless receiving node in the network, wherein the transmission is configured to be authenticated in the network without requiring a bidirectional connection between the wireless transmission device and the further network node in the network, wherein the wireless transmission device contains a long-term key, one or more nonces and a device identifier (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example),
wherein the wireless transmission device is configured to generate a derived key from the long-term key and a nonce of the one or more nonces (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example Step 3), and
wherein the transmission consists of a single message containing at least the device identifier encrypted with the derived key for authentication in the network (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example Step 6).
Regarding claim 2, Yato disclosed that the single message further contains data gathered by or stored in the device, optionally encrypted with at least one of the derived key and a client key, stored in the wireless transmission device (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example).
Regarding claim 3, Yato disclosed that the single message further contains information representing at least one of:
- an identifier associated with the wireless transmission device;
- the nonce of the one or more nonces, used to generate the derived key (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example).
Regarding claim 7, Yato disclosed that the device comprises a receiver for receiving data and/or instructions from the network, including at least one of:
- a signal representing an acknowledgement of successful authentication of the wireless transmission device in the network;
- new nonce information, wherein the new nonce information is optionally interpreted in the wireless transmission device as an acknowledgement of successful authentication of the wireless transmission device in the network (Yato Paragraphs 0067-0073 for example).
Regarding claim 9, Yato disclosed that the wireless transmission device comprises a storing part storing data and wherein the wireless transmission device is configured to transmit multiple single messages, each single message comprising at least the device identifier encrypted with the derived key and the data or part of the data stored in the storing part (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example).
Regarding claim 10, Yato disclosed an authentication system for use in a network, the authentication system having access to a long-term key of a wireless transmission device and a nonce used by the wireless transmission device to derive a derived key (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example), wherein the authentication system is configured:
- to receive a single message from the wireless transmission device containing a device identifier of the wireless transmission device encrypted with the derived key (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example),
- to access the long-term key and the nonce based on a device identifier of the wireless transmission device accessible by the authentication system to derive the derived key (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example), and
- to authenticate the wireless transmission device by decrypting the encrypted device identifier from the single message using the derived key (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example).
Regarding claim 11, Yato disclosed that the single message further contains data, optionally encrypted by at least one of the derived key and a client key, wherein the authentication system is configured to enable transmission of the single message encrypted with the client key, if applied, to a client system (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example).
Regarding claim 12, Yato disclosed that the authentication system is further configured to at least one of:
- use information representing an identifier of the wireless transmission device in the single message from the wireless transmission device to access the long-term key and optionally, the nonce to derive the derived key;
- use information representing a nonce in the single message from the wireless transmission device to derive the derived key together with at least the long-term key (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example).
Regarding claim 13, Yato disclosed that the network system is configured, in response to authentication of the wireless transmission device, to transmit at least one of:
- a signal representing an acknowledgement of successful authentication of the wireless transmission device in the network;
- new nonce information, wherein the new nonce information is optionally interpreted in the wireless transmission device as an acknowledgement of successful authentication of the wireless transmission device in the network (Yato Paragraphs 0067-0073 for example).
Regarding claim 15, Yato disclosed a network system having access to a long-term key associated with a wireless device and having access to one or more nonces, wherein the network system is configured to perform a transmission to the wireless device, the wireless device configured to wirelessly receive the transmission and having a device identifier, wherein the transmission is configured to be authenticated in the wireless device without requiring a bidirectional connection between the wireless device and the network system (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example), wherein the network system is configured to:
- access the long-term key of the wireless device based on a device identifier or a further device identifier (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example);
- generate a derived key from the long-term key and a nonce of the one or more nonces (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example); and
- transmit the transmission consisting of a single message containing at least the device identifier encrypted with the derived key for authentication in the wireless device (Yato Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs 0020-0033 for example).
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 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 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.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yato, and further in view of Wan et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0026723) hereinafter referred to as Wan.
Regarding claim 4, while Yato disclosed that the device is an ambient IoT device (Yato Paragraph 0095 for example), but did not explicitly teach that the device was configured to harvest power from an ambient power source, such as electromagnetic waves (radio waves, light), motion, heat, etc. Yato did not mention how the RFID is powered.
Wan taught that low power devices can be powered by extracting energy from received communications (Wan Paragraphs 0039, 0045, and Claim 19 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Wan in the low power device authentication system of Yato by extracting energy from received communications to power the tag. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known means to power the tag.
Regarding claim 5, Yato and Wan taught that the device comprises at least a power harvesting part configured to harvest power from a power signal, such as a radio signal, and a communication part configured for being powered by the power signal and for wireless transmission of the single message to the wireless receiving node during powering by the power signal (Wan Paragraphs 0039, 0045, and Claim 19 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Wan in the low power device authentication system of Yato by extracting energy from received communications to power the tag. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known means to power the tag.
Regarding claim 6, Yato and Wan taught that the wireless transmission device is configured to harvest the power from a single power pulse (Wan Paragraphs 0039, 0045, and Claim 19 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Wan in the low power device authentication system of Yato by extracting energy from received communications to power the tag. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known means to power the tag.
Regarding claim 8, Yato and Wan taught that the wireless transmission device is configured to harvest power from the signal containing the data and/or instructions from the network (Wan Paragraphs 0039, 0045, and Claim 19 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Wan in the low power device authentication system of Yato by extracting energy from received communications to power the tag. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known means to power the tag.
Regarding claim 14, Yato and Wan taught that the authentication system is configured to enable transmission of at least one of the signal representing an acknowledgement of successful authentication and the new nonce information with sufficient power to power the wireless transmission device from which the single message was authenticated (Wan Paragraphs 0039, 0045, and Claim 19 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Wan in the low power device authentication system of Yato by extracting energy from received communications to power the tag. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known means to power the tag.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0223276 taught that instructions may also cause the system to detect a second WLAN transmission of a second packet having the first packet size that exceeds the threshold size. The instructions may also cause the system to receive a second identification message including the identifier that matches the assigned identifier. The instructions may also cause the system to use harvested energy from the second WLAN transmission to transmit a response message to the received command message.
US 2019/0341954 taught a device includes an antenna, a microcontroller, and a power source. The power source configured to generate power in response to ambient energy received at a first frequency during a cycle of energy harvesting using the antenna. The power is transferred to a power storage cell such that when the power storage cell has an amount of power the microcontroller of the device processes at least a part of a processing task to be sent to an end node, and a result of processing of said at least said part of the processing task is stored. During one or more additional cycles of energy harvesting, using generated power to process one or more additional parts of the processing task to assemble a payload or process a wireless transmission of the payload. The wireless transmission of the payload is sent over a second frequency to the end node.
“Authenticated Encryption for Low-Power Reconfigurable Wireless Devices” taught that these radios have to propose cryptographic services such as confidentiality, integrity and authentication. a crypto solution for reconfigurable devices. The solution is a single pass Authenticated Encryption (AE) scheme that is designed for protecting both message confidentiality and its authenticity. This makes AE very attractive for low-cost low-power hardware implementation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-3PM EST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights