Office Action 2: Final Rejection (2024-05-22)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness

CLAIMS:
IN THE CLAIMS:

1\. (Currently amended) An authentication method of a prover device to a verifier device, the method comprising:
at least two successive verification operations, each operation comprising, successively:
generating, by the verifier device, \[\[a\]\] first data from \[\[a\]\] second data generated by the verifier device in a preceding verification operation;
sending, by the verifier device, the first data to the prover device;
generating, by the prover device, third data and fourth data used by a following verification operation, by applying a first function taking as input at least the first data and \[\[the\]\] fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation;
sending, by the prover device, the third data to the verifier device;
verifying, by the verifier device, the third data using a second function taking as input the first data and the third data; andoutputting, by the verifier device, information indicating whether the verification was successful, and the second data used by the following verification operation;
and authenticating the prover device to the verifier device in response to:for each verification operation, the information indicating that the verification was successful; and
the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of a last verification operation being correct.
2\. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein, during implementation of a first verification operation, the verifier device uses fifth data to generate the first data, and the prover device uses sixth data to generate the third data and the fourth data.

3\. (Original) The method according to claim 2, wherein the fifth data is different for each verification operation, and the sixth data is different for each verification operation.
4\. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 2, wherein, during implementation of each verification operation, the verifier device uses the fifth data to generate the first data, and the prover device uses the sixth data to generate the third data and the fourth data.
5\. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 2, wherein the verifier device generates the first data from the second data generated in the preceding verification operation and the fifth data, and the first function takes as input the first data, the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation, and the sixth data.
6\. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising an identification operation preceding the at least two successive verification operations, the identification operation comprising:
the prover and verifier devices exchanging identification numbers; and
in response to at least one of the devices not recognizing the identification number of the other device, implementing the at least two successive verification operations.
7\. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the first function of one of the at least two successive verification operations is different from the first function of another one of the at least two successive verification operations.
8\. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the second function of the at least two successive verification operations is different from the second function of another of the at least two successive verification operations.

9\. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the prover and verifier devices send data to each other in an encrypted manner.

10\. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 9, wherein, during implementation of each of the at least two successive verification operations, the prover and verifier devices send the data to each other in the encrypted manner using a first encryption key.

11\. (Original) The method according to claim 10, wherein the first encryption key is different for each implementation of each of the at least two successive verification operations.

12\. (Original) The method according to claim 11, wherein the first encryption key depends on the first encryption key of the preceding verification operation.

13\. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein, of the at least two successive verification operations, there is at least a first verification operation in which the second function generates seventh data, in addition, which is sent to the verifier device, and of the at least two successive verification operations there is at least one second verification operation, successive to the first verification operation, wherein:the verifier device further generates eighth data by applying the first function to the seventh data and sends the eighth data to the prover device; and
the prover device decrypts ninth data using the eighth data to generate the third data.

14\. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 13, wherein the prover device uses the eighth data to decrypt ninth data, and the first function further takes the ninth data as input to generate the third data.

15\. (Currently amended) A prover device comprising:a non-transitory memory comprising instructions; and
a processor in communication with the non-transitory memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to authenticate the prover device to a verifier device, the authentication comprising;at least two successive verification operations, each operation comprising, successively:
receiving first data from the verifier device, the first data generated by the verifier device from \[\[a\]\] second data generated by the verifier device in a preceding verification operation;
generating third data and fourth data used by a following verification operation, by applying a first function taking as input at least the first data and \[\[the\]\] fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation; and sending the third data to the verifier device for verification using a second function taking as input the first data and the third data; and
 verifying the prover device to authorized to communicate with the verifier device in response to:
the fourth data of the prover device of a last verification operation being correct.

16\. (Currently amended) The prover device according to claim 15, wherein the non- transitory memory is configured to store the first, third, and fourth data .

17\. (Currently amended) The prover device according to claim 15, wherein the authentication further comprises an identification operation preceding the at least two successive verification operations, the identification operation comprising:exchanging identification numbers with the verifier device; and
in response to at least one of the devices not recognizing the identification number of the other device, implementing the at least two successive verification operations.
i8. (Currently amended) A verifier device comprising:a non-transitory memory comprising instructions; and
a processor in communication with the non-transitory memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to authenticate a prover device to the verifier device, the authentication comprising;at least two successive verification operations, each operation comprising, successively:
generating \[\[a\]\] first data from \[\[a\]\] second data generated by the verifier device in a preceding verification operation;
sending the first data to the prover device;
receiving third data from the prover device, the third data and fourth data used by a following verification operation generated by the prover device by applying a first function taking as input at least the first data and \[\[the\]\] fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation;
verifying the third data using a second function taking as input the first data and the third data; and

outputting information indicating whether the verification was successful, and the second data used by the following verification operation; and
 verifying the prover device to authorized to communicate with the verifier device in response to:for each verification operation, the information indicating that the verification was successful; and
 the second data of the verifier device of a last verification operation being correct.

19\. (Currently amended) The verifier device according to claim i8, wherein the non- transitory memory is configured to store the first, second, and fourth data and the information.

20\. (Currently amended) The verifier device according to claim i8, wherein the authentication further comprises an identification operation preceding the at least two successive verification operations, the identification operation comprising:exchanging identification numbers with the prover device; and
in response to at least one of the devices not recognizing the identification number of the other device, implementing the at least two successive verification operations.

OFFICE 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1.		This Office Action is responsive to the communication filed 4/16/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
2.	The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/14/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
3.	Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, and 13-20 have currently been amended.
Allowable Subject Matter
4.	Claims 6, 13-14, 17, and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
5.	The applicant’s arguments filed 2/14/2024 have been taken into consideration, but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
A.	 In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed in pg. 1-2 of the remarks segment) that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest a verifier device generating the first data from a second data, also generated by the verifier device, in a preceding verification operation:
In light of the newly amended claim limitations, see par [0053-0055] of newly cited prior art reference Peeters (US 2020/0272724), which discloses implementing a verifier circuit to generate data based on prior generated random values used for authentication of a prover & verifier device.
B.	 In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed in pg. 2-3 of the remarks segment) that the cited prior art doesn’t teach or suggest the verifier device outputting information indicating whether the verification was successful, and the second data used by the following verification operation:
See par [0059], lines 1-16 of Peeters, which discloses a verifier issuing a status of whether authentication was successful.
C.	 In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed in pg. 3 of the remarks segment) that the cited prior art doesn’t teach or suggest the secondary/prover device generating fourth data used by a following verification operation and using fourth data generated in a preceding verification:
Also see par [0040], lines 1-15 of Peeters, which discloses verifying fourth data transmitted from the second device and the fourth data corresponding to decrypted second data.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
6.	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.
7.	Claims 1-5, 7-12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vendelbo et al (US 2018/0352433) in view of Jun et al (US 2015/0278506), further in view of Peeters (US 2020/0272724).
Regarding claim 1, Vendelbo et al teaches an authentication method of a prover device to a verifier device (fig. 1, ‘8/’10), the method comprising at least two successive verification operations (par [0014], “second authentication request”), each operation comprising, successively:
sending, by the verifier device, the first data to the prover device (fig. 2, ‘108 & par [0135], which discloses transmitting the information to the user application of the prover device);
authenticating the prover device to the verifier device in response to:
for each verification operation, the information indicating that the verification was successful (par [0006], lines 10-16, “second authentication data is successful”).
Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach generating, by the prover device, third data and fourth data used by a following verification operation, by applying a first function taking as input at least the first data and the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation; sending, by the prover device, the third data to the verifier device; verifying, by the verifier device, the third data using a second function taking as input the first data and the third data; and the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of a last verification operation being correct.
However, Jun et al teaches generating, by the prover device, third data used by a following verification operation (fig. 4, fig 6, par [0009] & par [0050], lines 10-20, which disclose first user device creating pairing data associated with proof and the first challenge information), by applying a first function taking as input at least the first data generated in the preceding verification operation (fig. 4 & par [0050], lines 12-16, “first function”);
sending, by the prover device, the third data to the verifier device (par [0022], lines 6-8, “transmitted from the primary device to the secondary device”); and
verifying, by the verifier device, the third data using a second function taking as input the first data and the third data (par [0021], lines 1-10 par [0031], lines 1-10, which disclose performing secondary functions for authentication using the pairing data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving upon determining device authentication by using previous authentication status data (as disclosed in par [0021] of Jun et al) because this technique would lower the amount of time needed by Vendelbo et al to authenticate devices by allowing Vendelbo et al to base authentication of communication devices upon credentials provided by each device in the prior collected authentication status.
Vendelbo et al and Jun et al do not explicitly teach generating, by the verifier device, a first data from a second data generated in a preceding verification operation; outputting, by the verifier device, information indicating whether the verification was successful, and the second data used by the following verification operation; generating, by the prover device, fourth data used by a following verification operation, by applying a first function taking as input at least the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation; and verifying the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of a last verification operation being correct.
However, Peeters teaches generating, by the verifier device, a first data from a second data (fig. 1 & par [0033], which disclose using a verifier to generate first data and receiving a datum from a second circuit storing at least one first datum) generated in a preceding verification operation (par [0035], lines 1-6, which discloses the second data corresponding to a result of a first function);
outputting, by the verifier device, information indicating whether the verification was successful (par [0059], lines 8-12, which discloses outputting an indication of successful authentication), and the second data used by the following verification operation (par [0059], lines 1-6, which discloses using verification function verify to output authentication responses using secondary datum);
generating, by the prover device, fourth data used by a following verification operation (par [0029], which discloses fourth datum created representative of the first datum for authentication), by applying a first function taking as input at least the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation (par [0030], which discloses implementing a first function utilized to retrieve the fourth datum representative of the first datum for authentication); and
verifying the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of a last verification operation being correct (par [0040], lines 1-15, which discloses verifying fourth data transmitted from the second device and the fourth data corresponding to decrypted second data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Peeters within the teachings of Vendelbo et al and Jun et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving authentication between devices and protection against potentially malicious devices communicating with other devices by using a plurality of functions and generating new pairs of data for each device authentication attempt (as disclosed in par [0081] of Peeters) because each function requires a plurality of random data to be generated and authenticated before each device can be authentication.
Regarding claim 2, Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein, during implementation of a first verification operation, the verifier device uses fifth data to generate the first data, and the prover device uses sixth data to generate the third data and the fourth data.
However, Jun et al teaches wherein, during implementation of a first verification operation, the verifier device uses fifth data to generate the first data (par [0021], lines 1-10, “generate a proof based on a portion of the pairing data”), and the prover device uses sixth data to generate the third data and the fourth data (par [0021], lines 1-10, “generate another proof based on a portion of the pairing data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein the fifth data is different for each verification operation, and the sixth data is different for each verification operation.
However, Jun et al teaches wherein the fifth data is different for each verification operation (fig. 8, which discloses each generated challenge corresponds to different values), and the sixth data is different for each verification operation (fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein, during implementation of each verification operation, the verifier device uses the fifth data to generate the first data, and the prover device uses the sixth data to generate the third data and the fourth data.
However, Jun et al teaches wherein, during implementation of each verification operation, the verifier device uses the fifth data to generate the first data (par [0044], lines 10-14, which discloses generating the first proof based on the received pairing data), and the prover device uses the sixth data to generate the third data and the fourth data (par [0022], lines 1-10 and par [0035], lines 28-30,  which disclose the primary device generating the proof and pairing data using retrieved secondary challenge data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein the verifier device generates the first data from the second data generated in the preceding verification operation and the fifth data, and the first function takes as input the first data, the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation, and the sixth data.
However, Jun et al teaches wherein the verifier device generates the first data from the second data generated in the preceding verification operation and the fifth data (par [0035], lines 34-36, “generated by the secondary device”), and the first function takes as input the first data, the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation, and the sixth data (par [0037], lines 14-17, “first cryptographic function may be performed based on inputs of the key and first challenge information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein the first function of one of the at least two successive verification operations is different from the first function of another one of the at least two successive verification operations.
However, Jun et al teaches wherein the first function of one of the at least two successive verification operations is different from the first function of another one of the at least two successive verification operations (par [0021], lines 1-10, “multiple cryptographic functions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein the first function of one of the at least two successive verification operations is different from the first function of another one of the at least two successive verification operations.
However, Jun et al teaches wherein the first function of one of the at least two successive verification operations is different from the first function of another one of the at least two successive verification operations (par [0033], lines 1-5, “cryptographic functions 412, 413, and 440”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Vendelbo et al and Jun et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Vendelbo et al further teaches wherein the first and verifier devices send data to each other in an encrypted manner (fig. 2 & par [0108]).
Regarding claim 10, Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein, during implementation of each of the at least two successive verification operations, the first and verifier devices send the data to each other in the encrypted manner using a first encryption key.
However, Jun et al teaches wherein, during implementation of each of the at least two successive verification operations, the first and verifier devices send the data to each other in the encrypted manner using a first encryption key (par [0039], lines 8-13, which discloses using a stored key to perform cryptographic communication between the prover and verifierary devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein the first encryption key is different for each implementation of each of the at least two successive verification operations.
However, Jun et al teaches wherein the first encryption key is different for each implementation of each of the at least two successive verification operations (claim 9, “generated random number”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein the first encryption key depends on the first encryption key of the preceding verification operation.
However, Jun et al teaches wherein the first encryption key depends on the first encryption key of the preceding verification operation (fig. 8 & par [0050], lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Vendelbo et al teaches a prover device (fig. 1, ‘8/’10), comprising:
a non-transitory memory (par [0008], lines 1-5) comprising instructions; and
a processor in communication with the non-transitory memory (par [0008], lines 1-5, “processing unit”), wherein the processor executes the instructions to authenticate the prover device to a verifier device, at least two successive verification operations (fig. 1, ‘8/’10 & par [0014], “second authentication”), each operation comprising, successively:
receiving first data from the verifier device, the first data generated by the verifier device from a second data generated in a preceding verification operation (par [0135], which discloses the secondary device generating a challenge value corresponding to the first authentication);
receiving, from the verifier device, information indicating whether the verification was successful (par [0023], “first authentication data is successfully verified”), and the second data used by the following verification operation fig. 2, ‘112 & (par [0006], lines 10-16, “second authentication data”);
authenticating the prover device to the verifier device in response to:
for each verification operation, the information indicating that the verification was successful (par [0006], lines 10-16, “second authentication data is successful”).
Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach generating third data and fourth data used by a following verification operation, by applying a first function taking as input at least the first data and the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation; sending the third data to the verifier device for verification using a second function taking as input the first data and the third data; and the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of the preceding verification operation being correct.
However, Jun et al teaches generating third data and fourth data used by a following verification operation (fig. 4, fig 6, par [0009] & par [0050], lines 10-20, which disclose first user device creating pairing data associated with proof and the first challenge information), by applying a first function taking as input at least the first data and the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation (fig. 4 & par [0050], lines 12-16, “first function”);
sending the third data to the verifier device (par [0022], lines 6-8, “transmitted from the primary device to the secondary device”) for verification using a second function taking as input the first data and the third data (par [0021], lines 1-10 par [0031], lines 1-10, which disclose performing secondary functions for authentication using the pairing data); and
the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of the preceding verification operation being correct (par [0015], lines 9-14 & par [0021], lines 7-20, which disclose using the received pairing data to perform secondary functions to generate another proof based on the previous pairing data used to determine previous authentication status, in order to update the authentication status).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving upon determining device authentication by using previous authentication status data (as disclosed in par [0021] of Jun et al) because this technique would lower the amount of time needed by Vendelbo et al to authenticate devices by allowing Vendelbo et al to base authentication of communication devices upon credentials provided by each device in the prior collected authentication status.
Vendelbo et al and Jun et al do not explicitly teach generating, by the verifier device, a first data from a second data generated in a preceding verification operation; outputting, by the verifier device, information indicating whether the verification was successful, and the second data used by the following verification operation; generating, by the prover device, fourth data used by a following verification operation, by applying a first function taking as input at least the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation; and verifying the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of a last verification operation being correct.
However, Peeters teaches generating, by the verifier device, a first data from a second data (fig. 1 & par [0033], which disclose using a verifier to generate first data and receiving a datum from a second circuit storing at least one first datum) generated in a preceding verification operation (par [0035], lines 1-6, which discloses the second data corresponding to a result of a first function);
outputting, by the verifier device, information indicating whether the verification was successful (par [0059], lines 8-12, which discloses outputting an indication of successful authentication), and the second data used by the following verification operation (par [0059], lines 1-6, which discloses using verification function verify to output authentication responses using secondary datum);
generating, by the prover device, fourth data used by a following verification operation (par [0029], which discloses fourth datum created representative of the first datum for authentication), by applying a first function taking as input at least the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation (par [0030], which discloses implementing a first function utilized to retrieve the fourth datum representative of the first datum for authentication); and
verifying the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of a last verification operation being correct (par [0040], lines 1-15, which discloses verifying fourth data transmitted from the second device and the fourth data corresponding to decrypted second data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Peeters within the teachings of Vendelbo et al and Jun et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving authentication between devices and protection against potentially malicious devices communicating with other devices by using a plurality of functions and generating new pairs of data for each device authentication attempt (as disclosed in par [0081] of Peeters) because each function requires a plurality of random data to be generated and authenticated before each device can be authentication.
Regarding claim 16, Vendelbo et al and Jun et al teach the limitations of claim 15.
Vendelbo et al further teaches wherein the non-transitory memory is configured to store the first (fig. 2, ‘108) and second data (fig. 2, ‘112), and the information (fig. 2, ‘106).
Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein the non-transitory memory is configured to store the third (par [0021], lines 1-10 par [0031], lines 1-10, “pairing data”), and fourth data (par [0009], “proof associated with pairing data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, Vendelbo et al teaches a verifier device (fig. 1, ‘8/’10), comprising:
a non-transitory memory (par [0008], lines 1-5) comprising instructions; and
a processor in communication with the non-transitory memory (par [0008], lines 1-5, “processing unit”), wherein the processor executes the instructions to authenticate the prover device to a verifier device, at least two successive verification operations (fig. 1, ‘8/’10 & par [0014], “second authentication”), each operation comprising, successively:
generating a first data from a second data generated in a preceding verification operation (par [0135], which discloses the secondary device generating a challenge value corresponding to the first authentication);
sending the first data to the prover device (fig. 2, ‘108 & par [0135], which discloses transmitting the information to the user application of the prover device);
outputting information indicating whether the verification was successful (par [0023], “first authentication data is successfully verified”), and the second data used by the following verification operation fig. 2, ‘112 & (par [0006], lines 10-16, “second authentication data”);
authenticating the prover device to the verifier device in response to:
for each verification operation, the information indicating that the verification was successful (par [0006], lines 10-16, “second authentication data is successful”).
Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach receiving third data from the prover device, the third and fourth data, used by a following verification operation, generated by the prover device by applying a first function taking as input at least the first data and the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation; verifying the third data using a second function taking as input the first data and the third data; and the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of the preceding verification operation being correct.
However, Jun et al teaches receiving third data from the prover device, the third and fourth data, used by a following verification operation (fig. 4, fig 6, par [0009] & par [0050], lines 10-20, which disclose first user device creating pairing data associated with proof and the first challenge information), generated by the prover device by applying a first function taking as input at least the first data and the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation (fig. 4 & par [0050], lines 12-16, “first function”);
verifying the third data using a second function taking as input the first data and the third data (par [0021], lines 1-10 par [0031], lines 1-10, which disclose performing secondary functions for authentication using the pairing data); and
the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of the preceding verification operation being correct (par [0015], lines 9-14 & par [0021], lines 7-20, which disclose using the received pairing data to perform secondary functions to generate another proof based on the previous pairing data used to determine previous authentication status, in order to update the authentication status).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving upon determining device authentication by using previous authentication status data (as disclosed in par [0021] of Jun et al) because this technique would lower the amount of time needed by Vendelbo et al to authenticate devices by allowing Vendelbo et al to base authentication of communication devices upon credentials provided by each device in the prior collected authentication status.
Vendelbo et al and Jun et al do not explicitly teach generating, by the verifier device, a first data from a second data generated in a preceding verification operation; outputting, by the verifier device, information indicating whether the verification was successful, and the second data used by the following verification operation; generating, by the prover device, fourth data used by a following verification operation, by applying a first function taking as input at least the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation; and verifying the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of a last verification operation being correct.
However, Peeters teaches generating, by the verifier device, a first data from a second data (fig. 1 & par [0033], which disclose using a verifier to generate first data and receiving a datum from a second circuit storing at least one first datum) generated in a preceding verification operation (par [0035], lines 1-6, which discloses the second data corresponding to a result of a first function);
outputting, by the verifier device, information indicating whether the verification was successful (par [0059], lines 8-12, which discloses outputting an indication of successful authentication), and the second data used by the following verification operation (par [0059], lines 1-6, which discloses using verification function verify to output authentication responses using secondary datum);
generating, by the prover device, fourth data used by a following verification operation (par [0029], which discloses fourth datum created representative of the first datum for authentication), by applying a first function taking as input at least the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation (par [0030], which discloses implementing a first function utilized to retrieve the fourth datum representative of the first datum for authentication); and
the second data of the verifier device of a last verification operation being correct (par [0040], lines 1-15, which discloses verifying fourth data transmitted from the second device and the fourth data corresponding to decrypted second data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Peeters within the teachings of Vendelbo et al and Jun et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving authentication between devices and protection against potentially malicious devices communicating with other devices by using a plurality of functions and generating new pairs of data for each device authentication attempt (as disclosed in par [0081] of Peeters) because each function requires a plurality of random data to be generated and authenticated before each device can be authentication.
Regarding claim 19, Vendelbo et al and Jun et al teach the limitations of claim 18.
Vendelbo et al further teaches wherein the non-transitory memory is configured to store the first (fig. 2, ‘108) and second data (fig. 2, ‘112), and the information (fig. 2, ‘106).
Vendelbo et al does not explicitly teach wherein the non-transitory memory is configured to store the third (par [0021], lines 1-10 par [0031], lines 1-10, “pairing data”), and fourth data (par [0009], “proof associated with pairing data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Jun et al within the teachings of Vendelbo et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1, 15, and 18 being independent. Claims 1, 15, and 18 have been amended. No new subject matter has been added. Specification Amendment
Basis for the amendment to the Specification may be found, for example, in Figures 3-7. Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant acknowledges with appreciation the indication of allowable subject matter regarding claims 6, 13, 14, 17, and 20, which stand 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. Section 103 Rejections
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. @ 103 as being
unpatentable over Vendelbo (US Pat. Appl. Publ. 2018/0352433) in view of Jun (US Pat. Appl. Publ. 2015/0278506) and Peeters (US Pat. Appl. Publ. 2020/0272724). Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
Independent claim i recites an authentication method of a prover device to a verifier device, the method comprising:
at least two successive verification operations, each operation comprising,
successively:
generating, by the verifier device, first data from second data generated by the verifier device in a preceding verification operation;
sending, by the verifier device, the first data to the prover device; generating, by the prover device, third data and fourth data used by a following verification operation, by applying a first function taking as input at least the first data and the fourth data generated in the preceding verification
operation;
sending, by the prover device, the third data to the verifier device; verifying, by the verifier device, the third data using a second function taking as input the first data and the third data; and
outputting, by the verifier device, information indicating whether the verification was successful, and the second data used by the following
verification operation; and
authenticating the prover device to the verifier device in response to:
for each verification operation, the information indicating that the verification was successful; and
the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the verifier device of a last verification operation being correct.
Vendelbo, Jun, and Peeters, even if possible to combine, do not teach or suggest these all
of these claim elements, nor do they remedy the below-described deficiencies of each other. In
particular, it is not possible to map the references onto the recited claim elements as asserted in
the Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, the Office Action states that Vendelbo teaches:
an authentication method of a prover device to a verifier device (fig. 1,
'8/'io), the method comprising at least two successive verification operations
(par [0014], "second authentication request"), each operation comprising,
successively:
sending, by the verifier device, the first data to the prover device (fig. 2,
'108 &par [0135], which discloses transmitting the information to the user
application of the prover device);
authenticating the prover device to the verifier device in response to:
for each verification operation, the information indicating that the
verification was successful (par [0006], lines 10-16, "second authentication data
is successful").
E.g., Office Action, p. 4 (May 22, 2024). The Office Action also states that Jun teaches:
generating, by the prover device, third data used by a following
verification operation (fig. 4,fig 6, par [0009] &par [0050], lines 10-20, which
disclose first user device creating pairing data associated with proof and the
first challenge information), by applying a first function taking as input at least
the first data generated in the preceding verification operation (fig. 4 &par
[0050], lines 12-16, "first function");
sending, by the prover device, the third data to the verifier device (par
[0022], lines 6-8, "transmitted from the primary device to the secondary
device"); and
verifying, by the verifier device, the third data using a second function
taking as input the first data and the third data (par [0021], lines 1-10 par
[0031], lines 1-10, which disclose performing secondary functions for
authentication using the pairing data).
E.g., id. at 5. The Office Action further states that Peeters teaches:
generating, by the verifier device, a first data from a second data (fig.1 &
par [0033], which disclose using a verifier to generate first data and receiving a
datum from a second circuit storing at least one first datum) generated in a
preceding verification operation (par [0035], lines 1-6, which discloses the
second data corresponding to a result of a first function);
outputting, by the verifier device, information indicating whether the
verification was successful (par [0059], lines 8-12, which discloses outputting an
indication of successful authentication), and the second data used by the
following verification operation (par [0059], lines 1-6, which discloses using
verification function verify to output authentication responses using secondary
datum);
generating, by the prover device, fourth data used by a following
verification operation (par [0029], which discloses fourth datum created representative of the first datum for authentication), by applying a first
function taking as input at least the fourth data generated in the preceding
verification operation (par [0030], which discloses implementing a first
function utilized to retrieve the fourth datum representative of the first datum
for authentication); and
verifying the fourth data of the prover device and the second data of the
verifier device of a last verification operation being correct (par [0040], lines 1- 15, which discloses verifying fourth data transmitted from the second device
and the fourth data corresponding to decrypted second data).
E.g., id. at 6-7. These interpretations do not align with Applicant's claims, as illustrated by the examples provided below. That is, several specific claim elements and relationships are not taught or suggested by any potential combination of Vendelbo, Jun, and Peeters.
As one example, claim 1 recites "at least two successive verification operations," which requires, in short, generating and sending by the verifier device, generating and sending by the prover device, verifying and outputting by the verifier device, another generating and sending by the verifier device, another generating and sending by the prover device, another verifying and outputting by the verifier device, and finally authenticating the prover device to the verifier device after the at least two successive verification operations. In contrast, Vendelbo discloses first and second authentication requests 108, 112, and responses, 110, 114, see, e.g., Vendelbo, Fig. 2,    [o137]-[0160], but these only can be considered as part of one verification operation of hearing aid 8 by user application 12, not at least two successive verification operations. Jun discloses one device generating a first authentication proof, receiving a second authentication proof from another device, and indicating a successful authentication if the two authentication proofs match. See, e.g., Jun, Figs. 5A-7, Abstract,    [0015], [oo21]-[oo22]. Peeters discloses verifier 100 generating datum C, prover 200 generating encoded datum R based on datum C, and verifier 100 verifying datum C and encoded datum R to providing output VF indicating a
result of the verification. See, e.g., Peeters, Fig. 1,    [0o53]-[oo59]. Thus, even assuming, solely for the purpose of this argument, that the references disclose one complete verification operation as recited by claim 1, the references do not teach or suggest at least two such verification operations in succession.
As another example, claim i recites that the second data used by the verifier device is generated by the verifier device in a preceding verification operation, and that the fourth data used by the prover device is generated by the prover device in a preceding verification operation. Taken from a different perspective, the second data generated by the verifier device is used by the verifier device in afollowing verification operation, and the fourth data generated by the prover device is used by the prover device in afollowing verification operation. Because the references disclose at most one verification operation as discussed above, the references do not teach or suggest second or fourth data used by one verification operation being generated in the preceding verification operation, or, similarly, second or fourth data that is generated by one verification operation being used by the following verification operation. That is, the references only disclose at most one verification operation, and therefore they do not teach or suggest second or fourth data being generated/used by two successive verification operations in authenticating a prover device to a verifier device.
As yet another example, claim i recites first and second data being generated by the verifier device, and third and fourth data being generated by the prover device.
[0063]. Peeters further discloses that
during a phase of personalizing the circuit 300, a circuit external to the circuit
300 retrieves the data A from the correspondence table 301 in order to calculate
the corresponding data A'. The data pairs (A, A') are then stored in the
correspondence table 301. Thus, during the active phase of the circuit 300, the
circuit 300 only stores the data A and A'. An advantage of this feature is that
neither the secret function f nor its inverse function flis known by the verifier
circuit 300.
E.g., id. at   [0071]. Not only does verifier circuit 300 not generate datum A', as it is generated by an external circuit during manufacture, verifier circuit 300 cannot generate datum A', because verifier circuit 300 does not know the secret function needed to generate datum A'.
Secondly, as acknowledged in the Office Action, Vendelbo and Jun do not explicitly teach generating, by the prover device, fourth data used by a following verification operation, by applying a first function taking as input at least the fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation. See Office Action at 6. Peeters does not remedy this deficiency of Vendelbo and Jun. Rather, Peeters discloses prover circuit 400 generating datum R based on datum A encoded with secret datum S possessed by prover circuit 400. See, e.g., Peeters at Fig. 2,    [oo77]-[0078]. Therefore, Peeters does not teach or suggest prover the device generating fourth data using first data and fourth data generated in the preceding verification operation, as required by claim 1.
Thus, the references, even if possible to combine, do not teach or suggest all of the first, second, third, and fourth data being generated by the proper devices according to claim 1.
For at least the above reasons, independent claim 1 is patentable over the prior art. Independent claims 15 and 18 each includes at least some similar relevant elements, and therefore these claims also are patentable over the prior art for associated reasons similar to those discussed above.
The remaining claims depend from and add further features to one of the independent claims. It is respectfully submitted that these dependent claims are allowable by reason of depending from an allowable claim, as well as for adding new features, and that it is not necessary to separately address these dependent claims. This should not be construed as an
acquiescence to Examiner's interpretation of those claims, or reading of those claim elements on the prior art, and Applicant expressly reserves the right to establish the patentability of those additional claim limitations, should the need arise. Conclusion

NEXT OFFICE 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest indicating successful verification of a first device transmitting an authentication request to a verification device, upon at least two consecutive verification operations being performed, upon authentication data being transmitted between the first device and the verification device, using data generated by the verification device in a previous verification operation and additional data generated by the first device for a subsequent verification operation, via applying a function using data generated in a previous verification operation, using a second function using previous data as an input for verifying the first device and outputting confirmation of successful verification of the first device, along with data to be used by the subsequent verification operation, in the specific manner and combinations recited in claims 1-20.
The closest related prior art are cited to state the general state of the art and are not considered to teach the distinguishing features noted above. The prior art includes:
(i) 	US PG Pub Kuhlman et al (US 7,363,492), which teaches a verifier device authenticating a requesting prover device using data retrieved from previous authentication results;
(ii) 	US PG Pub Cormode et al (US 2012/0143830), which discloses using preceding hash values from previous secure sessions to authenticate a prover device using a verifier device;
(iii) 	NPL document “Zero Knowledge Authentication” – Rob Leslie, Sedicii, 07/30/2015; and
(iv) 	NPL document “Secure Comparator: a ZKP-Based Authentication System” – Korchagin et al, Cossacklabs, 03/2015.
After thorough review of related prior art, the application has been deemed allowable because of the limitations of indicating successful verification of a first device transmitting an authentication request to a verification device, upon at least two consecutive verification operations being performed, upon authentication data being transmitted between the first device and the verification device, using data generated by the verification device in a previous verification operation and additional data generated by the first device for a subsequent verification operation, via applying a function using data generated in a previous verification operation, using a second function using previous data as an input for verifying the first device and outputting confirmation of successful verification of the first device, along with data to be used by the subsequent verification operation, recited in the specific manner and combinations recited within the claims. Upon an extensive search and review, none of the cited prior art taught the specified limitation or provided language for the specified limitations.
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

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20200272724A1: [content unavailable]
Ref US20200272724: Claims:
1. A method of authenticating a first circuit using a second circuit, comprising:
storing, at the second circuit, a first datum and a second datum, the second datum corresponding to an application of a first function to:
the first datum; and
a third datum;
 sending, from the second circuit to the first circuit, the second datum; decrypting, at the first circuit, the second datum; and sending, from the first circuit to the second circuit, a fourth datum representative of a result of the decrypting for authentication.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the second circuit verifies a correspondence between the first datum and the fourth datum.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the decrypting comprises applying a second function to the second datum.
4. The method of claim 3 wherein the second function is an inverse of the first function.
5. The method of claim 3 wherein the third datum is a random datum.
6. The method of claim 3 wherein at least one of the first function and the second function is a combination function.
7. The method of claim 6 wherein the combination function is a concatenation function.
8. The method of claim 6 wherein the combination function is an exclusive OR function.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the first datum is one of a plurality of first datum, the second datum is one of a plurality of second datum and the second circuit stores the plurality of first datum and the plurality of second datum in a correspondence table.
10. A device, comprising,
a memory; and cryptographic circuitry coupled to the memory, wherein: the cryptographic circuitry, in operation, responds to receipt of a first datum from a second device by:
decrypting the first datum; and
transmitting a second datum corresponding to a result of the decrypting to the second device; and
 the first datum corresponds to application of a first function to:
a third datum stored in the second circuit; and
a fourth datum.
11. The device of claim 10 wherein the cryptographic circuitry, in operation, applies a second function to the first datum to decrypt the first datum.
12. The device of claim 11 wherein the second function is an inverse of the first function.
13. The device of claim 10 wherein the fourth datum is a random datum.
14. The device of claim 11 wherein at least one of the first function and the second function is a combination function.
15. The device of claim 14 wherein the combination function is a concatenation function.
16. The device of claim 14 wherein the combination function is an exclusive OR function.
17. A device, comprising,
a memory storing a first datum and a second datum, the second datum corresponding to an application of a first function to:
the first datum; and
a third datum; and
 authentication circuitry coupled to the memory, wherein the authentication circuitry, in operation:
transmits the second datum to a second device;
responds to receipt of a fourth datum from the second device by verifying a correspondence between the first datum and the fourth datum, wherein the fourth datum is representative of a result of decrypting of the second datum by the second device.
18. The device of claim 17 wherein the fourth datum corresponds to application of a second function to the second datum.
19. The device of claim 18 wherein the second function is an inverse of the first function.
20. The device of claim 18 wherein the third datum is a random datum.
21. The device of claim 18 wherein at least one of the first function and the second function is a combination function.
22. The device of claim 21 wherein the combination function is a concatenation function.
23. The device of claim 21 wherein the combination function is an exclusive OR function.
24. The device of claim 17, wherein the first datum is one of a plurality of first datum, the second datum is one of a plurality of second datum and the device stores the plurality of first datum and the plurality of second datum in a correspondence table in the memory.
25. A system, comprising:
a first circuit storing a first datum and a second datum, the second datum corresponding to application of a first function to:
the first datum; and
a third datum; and
 a second circuit, which, in operation, responds to receipt of the second datum from the first circuit by:
decrypting the second datum; and
sending a fourth datum representative of a result of the decrypting to the first circuit.
26. The system of claim 25 wherein the first circuit, in operation, responds to receipt of the fourth datum by verifying a correspondence between the first datum and the fourth datum.
27. The system of claim 25 wherein the second circuit, in operation, applies a second function to the second datum to decrypt the second datum.
28. The system of claim 27 wherein the second function is an inverse of the first function.
29. The system of claim 25, wherein the first datum is one of a plurality of first datum, the second datum is one of a plurality of second datum and the first circuit stores the plurality of first datum and the plurality of second datum in a correspondence table.
Ref US20180352433: Claims:
1. A hearing device comprising:
a processing unit; a memory unit coupled to the processing unit; and an interface coupled to the processing unit; wherein the hearing device is configured to:
transmit security data of the hearing device to a user device, wherein the security data is indicative of an authentication type;
transmit first authentication material to the user device;
receive from the user device a first authentication request comprising a first authentication type identifier and first authentication data;
verify the first authentication data; and
transmit to the user device a first authentication response, wherein the first authentication response comprises a sound signal.
2. The hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the hearing device is further configured to:
receive from the user device a second authentication request comprising second authentication data; and verify the second authentication data.
3. The hearing device according to claim 2, wherein the hearing device is further configured to determine and storing an authentication key in the hearing device if the second authentication data is successfully verified.
4. The hearing device according to claim 3, wherein the hearing device is further configured to transmit to the user device a second authentication response comprising an authentication key identifier indicative of the authentication key in the hearing device if the second authentication data is successfully verified.
5. A method performed by a hearing device, the method comprising:
transmitting security data of the hearing device to a user device, wherein the security data is indicative of an authentication type; transmitting first authentication material to the user device; receiving from the user device a first authentication request comprising a first authentication type identifier and first authentication data; verifying the first authentication data; and transmitting to the user device a first authentication response; wherein the first authentication response comprises a sound signal.
6. The method according to claim 5, further comprising:
receiving from the user device a second authentication request comprising second authentication data; and verifying the second authentication data.
7. The method according to claim 6, further comprising determining and storing an authentication key in the hearing device if the second authentication data is successfully verified.
8. The method according to claim 7, further comprising transmitting to the user device a second authentication response if the second authentication data is successfully verified, the second authentication response comprising an authentication key identifier indicative of the authentication key in the hearing device.
9. The method according to claim 5, wherein the sound signal comprises a random sound signal.
10. The method according to claim 5, wherein the sound signal comprises one or more tones.
11. The method according to claim 5, wherein the first authentication response is transmitted if the first authentication data is successfully verified.
12. A method of communication with a hearing device, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a user device, first authentication material transmitted by the hearing device; transmitting a first authentication request comprising a first authentication type identifier and first authentication data to the hearing device; receiving a first authentication response comprising a sound signal from the hearing device; deriving second authentication material based on the sound signal; determining second authentication data based on the second authentication material; and transmitting a second authentication request comprising the second authentication data to the hearing device.
13. The method according to claim 12, wherein the first authentication material comprises a hearing device identifier and/or a first hearing device challenge value.
14. The method according to claim 12, further comprising determining a first common secret based on the first authentication material.
15. The method according to claim 12, further comprising:
determining an application session key; and calculating the first authentication data based on the application session key.
16. The method according to claim 12, further comprising:
receiving a second authentication response comprising an authentication key identifier from the hearing device; and storing an authentication key and the authentication key identifier, wherein the authentication key is based on the first authentication material.
17. The method according to claim 16, further comprising connecting the user device to the hearing device using the authentication key and the authentication key identifier.
18. The method according to claim 17, further comprising verifying the second authentication response;
wherein the act of storing the authentication key and the authentication key identifier and/or the act of connecting the user device to the hearing device using the authentication key and the authentication key identifier is performed if the second authentication response is successfully verified.
19. The method according to claim 16, further comprising calculating the authentication key based on the first authentication material.
20. The method according to claim 16, wherein the authentication key is based on the second authentication material.
21. The method according to claim 16, further comprising obtaining a public key of the hearing device, wherein the authentication key is based on the public key of the hearing device.
22. The method according to claim 12, further comprising obtaining security data from the hearing device, wherein the first authentication type identifier is based on the security data.
23. A product having a set of instructions, an execution of which by a processing unit of a user device causes a method to be performed, the method comprising:
obtaining first authentication material transmitted; transmitting a first authentication request comprising a first authentication type identifier and first authentication data to a hearing device; receiving a first authentication response comprising a sound signal from the hearing device; deriving second authentication material based on the sound signal; determining second authentication data based on the second authentication material; and transmitting a second authentication request comprising the second authentication data to the hearing device.
24. The product according to claim 23, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a second authentication response comprising an authentication key identifier from the hearing device; and storing an authentication key and the authentication key identifier, wherein the authentication key is based on the first authentication material.
25. The product according to claim 24, wherein the method further comprises connecting the user device to the hearing device using the authentication key and the authentication key identifier.
26. The product according to claim 25, wherein the method further comprises verifying the second authentication response;
wherein the act of storing the authentication key and the authentication key identifier and/or the act of connecting the user device to the hearing device using the authentication key and the authentication key identifier is performed if the second authentication response is successfully verified.
27. The product according to claim 24, wherein the method further comprises calculating the authentication key based on the first authentication material.
28. The product according to claim 24, wherein the authentication key is based on the second authentication material.
29. The product according to claim 24, wherein the method further comprises obtaining a public key of the hearing device, wherein the authentication key is based on the public key of the hearing device.
Ref US20150278506: Claims:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a first device and from a server, pairing data associated with a second device; generating a first authentication proof based on the pairing data received from the server; receiving, from the second device, a second authentication proof; and updating, by a processing device, an authentication status of the second device based on a comparison of the first authentication proof that is based on the pairing data received from the server and the second authentication proof that is received from the second device.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the pairing data comprises a first output value and a first challenge information, the method further comprising:
transmitting the first challenge information from the first device to the second device after receiving the pairing data, wherein the second authentication proof is based on the first challenge information, and wherein the first authentication proof is based on the first output value.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first output value corresponds to a cryptographic operation that is based on a key associated with the second device and the first challenge information.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein updating the authentication status corresponds to allowing the second device to access a function of the first device when the first authentication proof matches the second authentication proof, and wherein the authentication status corresponds to not allowing the second device to access the function of the second device when the first authentication proof does not match the second authentication proof.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting, at the first device, a second challenge information; and transmitting the second challenge information from the first device to the second device, wherein the first authentication proof is based on a cryptographic function using the second challenge information and a first portion of the pairing data received from the server, and wherein the second authentication proof is based on the same cryptographic function using the second challenge information and a second output value, wherein the second output value is based on a key associated with the second device and the first challenge information transmitted by the first device to the second device.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a unique identification associated with the second device; and transmitting, to the server, a request for the pairing data associated with the second device based on the unique identification associated with the second device.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first device is configured to respond to a particular command from the second device when the authentication status information indicates a successful authentication based on the comparison of the first authentication proof and the second authentication proof.
8. A system comprising:
a memory; and a processing device operatively coupled with the memory and to:
receive a request from a secondary device for authentication of the secondary device;
receive pairing data from a server based on an identification of the secondary device, wherein the pairing data comprises a first portion of pairing data and a second portion of pairing data;
generate a first proof based on the first portion of the pairing data;
transmit the second portion of the pairing data to the secondary device;
receive a second proof from the secondary device that is based on the second portion of the pairing data; and
authenticate the secondary device based on the first proof and the second proof.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the processing device is further to:
generate a random number; and transmit the random number to the secondary device, wherein the first proof is further based on the generated random number and the second proof is further based on the generated random number.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the processing device is further to:
generate a first cryptographic check using a first cryptographic function operating with the generated random number and the first portion of the pairing data; and transmit the first cryptographic check to the secondary device.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the receiving of the second proof from the secondary device is in response to the first cryptographic check matching a second cryptographic check that is generated by the secondary device.
12. The system of claim 8, wherein the server is associated with a plurality of pairing data, and wherein one pairing data of the plurality of pairing data is received at the first device based on the identification of the secondary device.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the processing device is further to:
transmit, to the server, information identifying an authentication status of the secondary device in view of the authentication of the secondary device that is based on the first proof and the second proof.
14. The system of claim 12, wherein the first portion of pairing data is a result of a cryptographic operation with a key associated with the secondary device and the second portion of the pairing data, and wherein the second proof is based on the same cryptographic operation.
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium including data that, when accessed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a first device and from a server, a first output value and a first challenge data associated with a second device; generating a first authentication proof based on a first cryptographic operation between the first output value received from the server and a generated number; receiving, from the second device, a second authentication proof that is generated based on a plurality of cryptographic operations, the first challenge data, and the generated number; and updating an authentication status of the second device based on a comparison of the first authentication proof that is based on the pairing data received from the server and the second authentication proof that is received from the second device.
16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the operations further comprising:
transmitting the generated number and the first challenge data to the second device.
17. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16, wherein the plurality of cryptographic operations that generates the second authentication proof comprises a second cryptographic operation to generate a second output value based on the first challenge data and a key associated with the secondary device, and the cryptographic operations that generates the second authentication proof further comprises the first cryptographic operation between the second output value and the generated number.
18. The non-transitory computer r
[Truncated to input limit]