DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to application 19289350 filed on May 04 , 2025.
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.
Claims 1-13 are pending and herein considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 the following U.S. Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11870911, which is directed towards providing a cryptographic information.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each
other because the claim limitations are either anticipated by the claims of the issued patents, or are otherwise obvious variations.
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Pub. Number 2018/0091309 A1, to Misoczki-Misoczki teaches hash signature control logic is to retrieve a first nonce, to concatenate the first nonce and a message to be transmitted and to determine whether a first message representative satisfies a target threshold. The signer signature logic is to generate a first transmitted signature based, at least in part, on the first message representative, if the first message representative satisfies the target threshold. The hash signature control logic is to retrieve a second nonce, concatenate the second nonce and the message to be transmitted and to determine whether a second message representative satisfies the target threshold.
include a self-authentication device having a unique serialized identifier and/or unique features. The device can use the serialized identification to create a secure hash to link to a block chain using a set of characteristics unique to the device. The characteristics of the device or the object features are generally unpublished. Authentication is achieved when the serialized number is matched to the unique characteristics mathematically and logged onto the block chain ledger using a mobile device with access to a network.
U.S. Pub. Number Spivack 2020/0076786 A1 teaches a self-authentication device having a unique serialized identifier and/or unique features. The device can use the serialized identification to create a secure hash to link to a block chain using a set of characteristics unique to the device. The characteristics of the device or the object features are generally unpublished. Authentication is achieved when the serialized number is matched to the unique characteristics mathematically and logged onto the block chain ledger using a mobile device with access to a network. For example, the self-authentication device can publish a serialized number and keeps the unique characteristics
/VU V TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
