Prior art

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11606204 and provide a detailed analysis, I need to access the cited references within the patent itself. The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool for this purpose.

Since I cannot directly interact with a live database, I will explain the steps I would take to retrieve and analyze the prior art, and then provide an example of the type of analysis you would expect for each reference, based on the patent's descriptions of its own subject matter.

Steps to Identify and Analyze Prior Art for US11606204:

1. Access USPTO Patent Public Search: I would use the USPTO Patent Public Search tool, specifically the "Advanced Search" interface, to search for patent number 11606204.
2. Locate "Cited References": Within the detailed view of US11606204, I would navigate to the section listing "Cited References" or "References Cited." This section typically includes U.S. patents, foreign patents, and other publications cited by the applicant or the examiner during prosecution.
3. Extract Citation Details: For each cited reference, I would extract the following information:
   • Full citation (e.g., patent number, inventor(s), publication date).
   • Filing date (if a patent).
   • A brief description of its subject matter, which can usually be found in its abstract and summary.
4. Analyze Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): For each cited reference, I would then compare its teachings to the independent claims of US11606204 (Claims 1, 10, 16, and 19).
   • Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 means that every element of a claim is found, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference. If a reference describes the exact same invention, it anticipates the claim.
   • My analysis would focus on whether each limitation of an independent claim in US11606204 is present in the prior art reference. If even one element is missing from a single prior art reference, that reference does not anticipate the claim.

Example of Prior Art Analysis (Hypothetical Reference):

Let's assume, for illustrative purposes, that US11606204 cited a hypothetical patent, "US 8,000,000 to Smith," with the title "Secure Communication System for Remote Devices."

Hypothetical Prior Art Reference:

• Full Citation: US 8,000,000 B1 to Smith et al., titled "Secure Communication System for Remote Devices," issued August 15, 2011.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: August 15, 2011; Filing Date: January 20, 2010.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for secure communication between a central server and multiple remote sensing devices. The remote devices use symmetric encryption with pre-shared keys to send sensor data to the server. The server then forwards this data to an application for display to users. The system aims to minimize power consumption in the remote devices by allowing them to sleep between transmissions.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) of US11606204: US 8,000,000 discloses remote devices (analogous to M2M modules) with processors, memory, and transceivers, communicating with a central server. It also describes collecting sensor data and transmitting messages. However, US 8,000,000 explicitly states the use of symmetric encryption with pre-shared keys. Independent Claim 1 of US11606204, in contrast, specifies the M2M module storing a private key and generating a module public key and module public key identity, and the server decrypting using the module's public key. This specific public key infrastructure (PKI) element for module-to-server communication, including the generation and use of module private/public key pairs, appears to be absent in the hypothetical Smith patent. Therefore, US 8,000,000 would likely not anticipate Claim 1 of US11606204 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 due to the differing cryptographic approaches for module-server communication.
  • Independent Claim 10 (Method Claim) of US11606204: Similar to Claim 1, the method described in US 8,000,000 focuses on symmetric key usage for the remote devices. Claim 10 of US11606204 specifically requires the server to receive and record a module public key, decrypt using the module public key, and utilize different asymmetric ciphering algorithms (e.g., ECC for module, RSA for application server). These specific PKI and asymmetric ciphering aspects are not present in the hypothetical Smith patent, preventing anticipation.
  • Independent Claim 16 (Method Claim for Module Instruction) of US11606204: While US 8,000,000 might describe the server sending instructions to remote devices, it does not disclose the distinct first and second server public keys using different cryptographic algorithms (e.g., RSA for application server, ECC for module) as required by Claim 16.
  • Independent Claim 19 (Method Claim for Key Update) of US11606204: The hypothetical Smith patent, relying on pre-shared symmetric keys, would not disclose the detailed process of a module deriving a new public and private key pair and securely sending the new module public key to the server, as mandated by Claim 19.

This example demonstrates how each element of the independent claims would be scrutinized against the disclosures of a prior art reference to determine if it meets the strict "all elements present" test for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.