DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in response to the application filed 4 June 2025.
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 .
Priority
Claims 1-20 were originally filed, having a filing date of 4 June 2025, subsequently cancelled and claims 21-40 added via a preliminary amendment filed 7 August 2025. Claims 1-20 and 21-40, claim domestic benefit as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Number 17/540,183, now U.S. Patent Number 12,351,335, and claim priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/170,883, filed 05 April 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 4 June 2025 complies with 37 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the 1449 form is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings, filed 4 June 2025, are accepted by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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); 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 non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The following claims are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the corresponding claims of U.S. Patent Number 12,351,335.
12,351,335 claims Claims from This Application
1, 2 21, 22
3 24
4 25
5 38
6 31
10, 11 27, 28
14 31
12 30
17 34
18 35
19 38
20 37
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention of the current case would be invented with the claim limitations of the issued patent. The claims are no patentably distinct and would not result in two separate inventions. The intention of the current application would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention because the claim limitations of the instant case would not be distinguished over the claimed of the issued patent and when properly construed, define the same invention.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0281259 to Palazzolo in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0048214 to Winslow et al. (hereafter Winslow), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0083713 to Simmons et al. (hereafter Simmons), and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0269066 to Whitehead et al. (hereafter Whitehead).
As per claim 21, Palazzolo discloses [a] system (see at least Palazzolo, Abstract) comprising:
a key device including a memory (see at least Palazzolo, [0127]
disclosing that the accounting engine 153 may function as a digital cryptocurrency wallet for storing the public and private keys which can be used to perform data transactions and to receive or spend the cryptocurrency and its associated tokens. The cryptocurrency of the system 100 is decentrally stored and maintained in the, blockchain database 113. Every piece of cryptocurrency has a private key. With the
private key, it is possible to write in the blockchain database 113, effectively
spending the associated cryptocurrency) ... (1) ... , and
a first serial port connector, wherein the memory is configured to store a private key (see at least Palazzolo, [0127] disclosing that the accounting engine 153 may function as a digital cryptocurrency wallet for storing the public and private keys which can be used to perform data transactions and to receive or spend the cryptocurrency and its associated tokens. The cryptocurrency of the system 100 is decentrally stored and maintained in the blockchain database 113. Every piece of cryptocurrency has a private key. With the private key, it is possible to write in the blockchain database 113, effectively spending the associated cryptocurrency); and ... (2) ... , ... (3) ... , ... (4) ... , ... (5) ... , ... (6) ... , ... (7) ... , ... (8) ... , ... (9) ... ; ... (10) ... ; ... (11) ... . But, the difference between the claimed invention and Palazzolo is that Palazzolo does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Winslow and Whitehead, comparable systems where it was known to have:
(1) a light emitting diode (see at least Winslow, [0065] disclosing that parent and/or Host Interface Connector 420 may include Plaintext Traffic Interface 422 and/or Ciphertext Traffic Interface 430 for communicating unencrypted and/or encrypted data, respectively. For example, when interfacing with a host communication system that uses Child Cryptographic Device 400 for encryption/decryption, Child Cryptographic Device 400 may locally send and/or receive unencrypted data using Plaintext Traffic Interface 422 Discrete Lines 428 may include an electrical line that is used to provide a zeroization signal (e.g., trigger Child Cryptographic Device 400 to clear memory and/or clear cryptographic keys). Discrete Lines 428 may include an electrical line that is used to indicate a status, for example to device an external status light emitting diode (LED) indicator)
(2) an unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least Winslow, [0011] including,
(3) one or more sensors (see at least Winslow, [0011]; [0019]; [0033] disclosing that Mobile Platform 210 may include one or more Sensor(s) 220 for collecting data)
(4) a second serial port connector configured to connect with the first serial port connector (see at least Winslow, [0011] disclosing that the configurable E/D device may be configured to receive one or more new session keys via the serial interface while operably connected to the host communication system via the first interface),
(5) a non-volatile memory, and a processing apparatus (see at least Winslow, [0011] disclosing that the configurable E/D device may include one or more of a battery or a capacitor configured to act as a temporary power supply for a volatile memory region of the programmable logic device. For example, the volatile memory region may be configured to erase data stored in the volatile memory region upon loss of power. The one or more of the battery or the capacitor may be configured to provide power to the volatile memory region for a limited period of time. The configurable E/D device may include a serial interface),
(6) wherein the processing apparatus is configured to: present a first visual feedback via the light emitting diode of the key device while performing an encryption provisioning operation (see at least Winslow, [0019]; [0065] disclosing that Parent and/or Host Interface Connector 420 may also include Discrete Lines 428, which may include one or more electrical lines that are dedicated for communicating information for one or more discrete functions (e.g., rather than user data and/or other data streams). And further that Discrete Lines 428 may include an electrical line that is used to provide a zeroization signal (e.g., trigger Child Cryptographic Device 400 to clear memory and/or clear cryptographic keys). Discrete Lines 428 may include an electrical line that is used to indicate a status, for example to device an external status light emitting diode (LED) indicator),
(7) including transmitting a public key to the unmanned aerial vehicle via the first serial port connector connected to the second serial port connector (see at least Winslow, [0065] disclosing that encrypted data (e.g., data encrypted using one or more session keys loaded on Child Cryptographic Interface 400), may be sent and/or received using Ciphertext Traffic Interface 430. Parent and/or Host Interface Connector 420 may also include Discrete Lines 428, which may include one or more electrical lines that are dedicated for communicating information for one or more discrete functions (e.g., rather than user data and/or other data streams). For example, Discrete Lines 428 may include an electrical line that is used to provide a zeroization signal (e.g., trigger Child Cryptographic Device 400 to clear memory and/or clear cryptographic keys); [0066] disclosing that Child Cryptographic Device 400 may include Serial Interface 402. For example, Serial Interface 402 may be used such that a parent cryptographic device may remotely configure Child Cryptographic Device 400. For example, Serial Interface 402 may be used such that one or more child cryptographic devices (e.g., including Child Cryptographic Device 400) may be rekeyed after deployment. As an example, Serial Interface 402 may be used as part an over-the-air re-keying (OTAR) procedure for one or more child cryptographic devices),
(8) wherein the public key is paired to the private key (see at least Winslow, [0019] disclosing that E/D Device 100 may be configured to support communication via the HAIPE® protocol. E/D Device 100 may be configured to perform symmetric encryption (e.g., uses the same key to encrypt and decrypt), asymmetric encryption (e.g., uses different keys to encrypt and decrypt), public-key encryption (e.g., the publicly known key is used to encrypt and a private key is used to decrypt), manual encryption (e.g., user input may be utilized), transparent encryption (e.g., user input is not utilized), and/or the like. Encryption may be used with protocols which operate at OSI Layer 3, for example at the IP layer. An example IP layer encryption protocol may be Internet Protocol Security (IPsec));
(9) while the key device is connected to the unmanned aerial vehicle via the first serial port connector connected to the second serial port connector (see at least Whitehead, [0027]; [0036] disclosing that prior to providing secure relay data capability, initialization of the encrypting/decrypting transceiver 58 and the PC 54 is performed. Initialization includes inserting, via respective serial ports, an H MAC authentication system key 63 and an AES encryption/decryption system key 65 into the encrypting/decrypting transceiver 58 and the PC 54 ),
(10) receiving the public key from the first serial port connector connected to the second serial port connector (see at least Winslow, [0058] disclosing that Parent Cryptographic Device 300 may include various input/output ports. For example, Parent Cryptographic Device 300 may include one or more child interfaces (e.g., Child Interface 302A, Child Interface 302B, Child Interface 302C, etc.) for configuring child E/D devices and/or otherwise loading child E/D devices with one or more session keys. Parent Cryptographic Device 300 may include Serial Interface 203, while may be used to remotely configure, control, and/or otherwise communicate with one or more child E/D devices. For example, a child E/D device may be installed on a platform that also includes a serial interface. A serial connection may be established between the platform and Parent Cryptographic Device 300, for example using Serial Interface 304. The serial connection may then be used by Parent Cryptographic Device 300 in order to control and/or otherwise configured the child E/D device in a substantially similar manner as if the child interface was operably connected to a child interface (e.g., Child Interface 302A, Child Interface 302B, Child Interface 302C, etc.); and
(11) present a second visual feedback via the light emitting diode responsive to completion of the encryption provisioning operation (see at least Winslow, [0065]).
Palazzolo, Winslow and Whitehead are analogous art to claim 21 because they are in the same field of using security keys. Palazzolo relates to the field of recording apparatuses and systems configured to record the environment around a firearm using security keys (see at least Palazzolo, Abstract). Winslow relates to a system for performing encryption and decryption on a parent cryptographic device (see at least Winslow, Abstract). Whitehead relates to a system and method for converting serial data into secure data packets configured for wireless transmission in a power system (see Whitehead, [0002]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious from someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the security system, as disclosed in Palazzolo, to provide the benefit of (1) having a light emitting diode, (2) having an unmanned aerial vehicle, (3) having one or more sensors, (4) having a second serial port connector configured to connect with the first serial port connector, (5) having a non-volatile memory, and a processing apparatus, (6) having the processing apparatus be configured to, present a first visual feedback via the light emitting diode of the key device while performing an encryption provisioning operation, (7) transmitting a public key to the unmanned aerial vehicle via the first serial port connector connected to the second serial port connector, (8) having the public key is paired to the private key, (9) having the key device be connected to the unmanned aerial vehicle via the first serial port connector connected to the second serial port connector, (10) receiving the public key from the first serial port connector connected to the second serial port connector, and (11) presenting a second visual feedback via the light emitting diode responsive to completion of the encryption provisioning operation, as disclosed in Winslow and Whitehead, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palazzolo, Winslow and Whitehead as applied to claims 21 and 27 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0083713 to Simmons et al. (hereafter Simmons).
As per claim 22, the combination of Palazzolo, Winslow and Whitehead discloses all of the limitations of claim 21, as shown above. Winslow further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the processing apparatus is configured to: store a symmetric key in volatile memory (see at least Winslow, [0007] disclosing that the cryptographic configuration device may include secure tamper memory; [0049] disclosing that Child E/D Device 208 and Child E/D Device 218 may each be applied to a peer entity of a communication session, and if symmetric encryption is to be utilized, each of Child E/D Device 208 and Child E/D Device 218 may be loaded with the same session key(s) to be used for encryption/decryption during the symmetrically encrypted session; [0057] disclosing that Parent Cryptographic Device 300 may include Volatile Memory 318 and/or Non-Volatile Memory 320);
while the unmanned aerial vehicle is flying, encrypt, using the symmetric key, media data captured using the one or more sensors to obtain encrypted media data (see at least Winslow, [0045]; [0068] disclosing that once the child cryptographic device(s) have been configured for use (e.g., using the same cryptographic session key(s) if symmetric encryption/decryption is to be used, for example), at 504 the child cryptographic devices may deployed to the communications systems for which encryption/decryption is to be performed.) ... . But, neither Palazzolo, Winslow nor Whitehead explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Simmons:
encrypt, using the public key, the symmetric key to obtain an encrypted symmetric key (see at least Simmons, [0019] disclosing that the storage device may thus store public keys associated with various entities. The storage device may encrypt the symmetric key using the public key of each authorized entity; [0020] disclosing that unauthorized entities do not have the private key needed to decrypt the encrypted symmetric keys);
and store the encrypted media data and the encrypted symmetric key in the non-volatile memory (see at least Simmons, [0020] disclosing that the encrypted data stored at the storage device may be sent to other entities that are not authorized to access data without jeopardizing the security of the data. Unauthorized entities do not have the private key needed to decrypt the encrypted symmetric keys).
Palazzolo, Winslow, Whitehead and Simmons are analogous art to claim 22 because they are in the same field of using security keys. Palazzolo relates to the field of recording apparatuses and systems configured to record the environment around a firearm using security keys (see at least Palazzolo, Abstract). Winslow relates to a system for performing encryption and decryption on a parent cryptographic device (see at least Winslow, Abstract). Simmons relates to a computer-implemented method for encrypting a data element (see at least Simmons, Abstract). Whitehead relates to a system and method for converting serial data into secure data packets configured for wireless transmission in a power system (see Whitehead, [0002]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious from someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the security system, as disclosed in Palazzolo, as modified by Winslow and Whitehead, to provide the benefit of encrypting, using the public key, the symmetric key to obtain an encrypted symmetric key and storing the encrypted media data and the encrypted symmetric key in the non-volatile memory, as disclosed in Winslow, Simmons and Whitehead, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing a system for selectively sharing data (see at least Simmons, [0003]; [0027]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palazzolo, Winslow and Whitehead as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 10,673,617 to Antoniou et al. (hereafter Antoniou).
As per claim 26, the combination of Palazzolo, Winslow and Whitehead discloses all of the limitations of claim 21, as shown above. But, the difference between the claimed invention and the combination is that neither Palazzolo, Winslow, nor Whitehead explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Antoniou, a comparable system where it was known to have:
wherein the first visual feedback is blinking a light emitting diode, and the second visu3al feedback is turning off the light emitting diode (see at least Antoniou, col 46, In. 7-35, disclosing that with regard to step 80, the USB connectivity if there is no connectivity, step 80 LED indicator turns on. The 84 MC (A) and MC (B) connectivity is applied, and if there is no connectivity, the step 86 LED indicator blinks and stops).
Palazzolo, Winslow, Whitehead and Antoniou are analogous art to claim 26 because they are in the same field of using security keys. Palazzolo relates to the field of recording apparatuses and systems configured to record the environment around a firearm using security keys (see at least Palazzolo, Abstract). Winslow relates to a system for performing encryption and decryption on a parent cryptographic device (see at least Winslow, Abstract). Whitehead relates to a system and method for converting serial data into secure data packets configured for wireless transmission in a power system (see Whitehead, [0002]). Antoniou relates to identity access management and central server software combining point-to-point encryption algorithms (see at least Antoniou, col. 1, In. 18-23).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious from someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the security system, as disclosed in Palazzolo, as modified by Winslow and Whitehead, to provide the benefit of having the first visual feedback is blinking a light emitting diode, and the second visual feedback is turning off the light emitting diode, as disclosed in Antoniou, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winslow and Whitehead.
As per claim 27, Winslow discloses [a] method (see Winslow, Abstract) comprising:
connecting a key device to an unmanned aerial vehicle via a first serial port connector of the key device (as cited in claim 21, see at least Winslow, [0011]) and ... (1) ... ;
presenting a first visual feedback via a light emitting diode of the key device while performing an encryption provisioning operation (as cited in claim 21, see at least Winslow, [0019]; [0065]),
including transmitting a public key to the unmanned aerial vehicle via the first serial port connector connected to the second serial port connector (as cited in claim 21, see at least Winslow, [0065]);
... (2) ... , receiving the public key from the key device via the first serial port connector connected to the second serial port connector (as cited in claim 21, see at least Winslow, [0058]);
responsive to completion of the encryption provisioning operation, presenting a second visual feedback via the light emitting diode (as cited in claim 21, see at least Winslow, [0065]); and
disconnecting the key device from the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least Winslow, [0041]; [0050]; [0051] disclosing that Child E/D device 218 may decrypt the received data using the one or more session key(s) loaded by Parent Cryptographic Device 240. The decryption algorithm used may have been loaded by Parent Cryptographic Device 240 and/or may have been pre-installed on Child E/D Device 218 (e.g., was installed prior to loading the session key(s)). After decryption, the decrypted data may be sent to Mobile Platform Processing Module 212 for processing, for example using the plaintext interface (e.g., secure interface, red interface, etc.)). But, the difference between the claimed invention and Winslow is that Winslow does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Whitehead, comparable method where it was known to have:
(1) a second serial port connector of the unmanned aerial vehicle (as cited in claim 21, see at least Whitehead [0027]; [0036]) ... ; and
(2) while the key device is connected to the unmanned aerial vehicle via the first serial port connector connected to the second serial port connector, receiving the public key (as cited in claim 21, see at least Whitehead, [0027]; [0036]) ... .
Winslow and Whitehead are analogous art to claim 27 because they are in the same field of using security keys. Winslow relates to a system for performing encryption and decryption on a parent cryptographic device (see at least Winslow, Abstract). Whitehead relates to a system and method for converting serial data into secure data packets configured for wireless transmission in a power system (see Whitehead, [0002]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious from someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the security system, as disclosed in Palazzolo, to provide the benefit of (1) having a second serial port connector of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and (2) while the key device is connected to the unmanned aerial vehicle via the first serial port connector connected to the second serial port connector, receiving the public key, as disclosed in Whitehead, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winslow and Whitehead as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Simmons.
As per claim 28, the combination of Winslow and Whitehead discloses all of the limitations of claim 27, as shown above. Winslow further discloses the following limitations:
while the unmanned aerial vehicle is flying, encrypting, using a symmetric key, media data captured using one or more sensors of the unmanned aerial vehicle to obtain encrypted media data (as cited in claim 22, see at least Winslow, [0007]; [0049]; [0045]; [0057]; [0068]) ... . But, neither Winslow nor Whitehead explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Simmons:
encrypting, using the public key, the symmetric key to obtain an encrypted symmetric key (as cited in claim 22, see at least Simmons, [0019]; [0020]); and
storing the encrypted media data and the encrypted symmetric key in non-volatile memory (see at least Simmons, [0020]).
Winslow, Whitehead and Simmons are analogous art to claim 27 because they are in the same field of using security keys. Winslow relates to a system for performing encryption and decryption on a parent cryptographic device (see at least Winslow, Abstract). Whitehead relates to a system and method for converting serial data into secure data packets configured for wireless transmission in a power system (see Whitehead, [0002]). Simmons relates to a computer-implemented method for encrypting a data element (see at least Simmons, Abstract).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious from someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Winslow, as modified by Whitehead, to provide the benefit of encrypting, using the public key, the symmetric key to obtain an encrypted symmetric key and storing the encrypted media data and the encrypted symmetric key in the non-volatile memory, as disclosed in Winslow, Simmons and Whitehead, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing a system for selectively sharing data (see at least Simmons, [0003]; [0027])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 29 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. Claims 24-26 and 30-33 are also objected to based upon their dependence on claims 23 and 29.
Claims 34 would be allowed, subject to the filing of the terminal disclaimer. Claims 33-40 would also be allowed, based upon their dependence on independent claim 34, subject to the filing of the terminal disclaimer.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 34, the closest prior art, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0281259 to Palazzolo, teaches:
A firearm environmental recording apparatus, which may be used with a firearm environmental recording system, may include: a firearm attachment structure configured to attach to portions of a firearm; a processing unit; a camera configured to record image data; a microphone configured to record audio data; and an inertial sensor module configured to provide to orientation data. The image data, audio data, and orientation data may be associated with and/or stored in a database, such as a database of a network. Preferably, the apparatus may comprise a key which may be removably coupled to the body of the apparatus, and the key may govern or enable a first processor of the apparatus to access data in an auxiliary data store of the apparatus.
Further, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0048214 to Winslow et al. (hereafter Winslow) teaches:
A system for performing encryption and/or decryption may include a parent cryptographic device. The parent cryptographic device may be configured to receive a first cryptographic key. The parent cryptographic device may be configured to determine one or more session keys based on the first cryptographic key and/or internally generated random data bits. The parent cryptographic device may be configured to insert the one or more session keys onto one or more child cryptographic devices that are operably connected to the parent cryptographic device. The one or more child cryptographic devices may be configured to receive the one or more session keys from the parent cryptographic device, and perform one or more of encryption or decryption of communications exchanged with another child cryptographic device of the one or more child cryptographic devices. The one or more child cryptographic devices may perform encryption/decryption after separation from the parent cryptographic device.
Still further, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0083713 to Simmons et al. (hereafter Simmons) teaches:
In one aspect there is provided a computer-implemented method for encrypting a data element. The method includes generating a symmetric key and encrypting the data element using the symmetric key. The method also includes identifying one or more entities in a policy database that are authorized to access the data element, and retrieving a public key associated with each of the one or more entities. The method also includes, for each entity of the entities that are authorized to access the data element, encrypting the symmetric key using the public key associated with the entity to obtain an encrypted symmetric key, and appending the encrypted symmetric key to a file storing the encrypted data element.
Still further, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0269066 to Whitehead et al. (hereafter Whitehead) teaches:
Provided is a system and method for converting serial data associated with an IED into secure data packets configured for transmission during an IED maintenance session; preferably wireless transmission. The system includes a first intelligent assembly operatively coupled to the IED, and a second intelligent assembly operatively coupled to the first intelligent device via a wireless communication link. Each of the first and second intelligent assemblies includes a microcontroller adapted to apply two independent security algorithms to the serial data to form the secure data packets, and vice versa. The second intelligent assembly further includes a plurality of legacy software applications executable to enable the IED maintenance session to be conducted by an operator from a location of the second intelligent assembly. The security algorithms preferably include an AES encryption/decryption function and a HMAC authentication function.
Still further, US Patent Number 10,673,617 to Antoniou et al. (hereafter Antoniou)teaches:
A combined system and not a system separately having a complex system hardware architecture and software with levels of complexity of P2PE, IAM, and BCE. A microcontroller (MC) 64-bit using MC (A) and MC (B) embedded into a device using point-to-point encryption (P2PE) to communicate with the novel IAM blockchain software and a central server database to track all registered and non-registered IoT devices in the BCE. The present invention includes a MC 64-bit method of MC (A) and MC (B) having an advanced encryption standards (AES) strong encryption algorithm (SEA) of 512-bit key utilizing the blockchain ecosystem (BCE), IoT identity to validate transactions between the authentication, and identity of the IoT devices. The MC 64-bit of MC (A) and MC (B) employs a novel AES-SEA 512-bit key to generate a real-time randomly validation symmetrical key encryption in rounds of 10 bits, sending data into the central server and the IAM blockchain software to authenticate each device, track IoT devices, MC entries, and validations. Once the encryption AES-SEA 256-bit key is generated in the MC (A) and the encryption AES-SEA 256-bit key is generated in MC (B), the communication between the MC (A) and MC (B) will generate the AES-SEA 512-bit key with 10 bits; the pseudo-random number process is modified using a time based to be programmed with a timer which has an input of the clock frequency. The MC 64-bit of MC (A) and MC (B) is programmed in a master mode and slave mode; therein providing a novel system of circuit hardware using an AES-SEA 512-bit key and AES 2048 algorithm key to generate PKI certifications for validation, authentication, and authorization through the BCE.
In regards to independent claim 34, Palazzolo, Winslow, Simmons, Whitehead and Antoniou, either alone or in combination with other art of record, fail to teach or render obvious, in the context of the remaining claims:
encrypt, using a symmetric key, media data captured using the one or more sensors to obtain encrypted media data;
encrypt, using the public key, the symmetric key to obtain an encrypted symmetric key;
store the encrypted media data and the encrypted symmetric key in the non- volatile memory; and
while the key device is connected to the autonomous vehicle via the first connector connected to the second connector, decrypt, using the private key, the encrypted symmetric key to obtain the symmetric key.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights