DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed 5/12/2026 has been placed of record in the file.
Claims 24 and 34 have been amended.
Claims 31 and 41 have been canceled.
Claims 46 and 47 have been added.
Claims 24, 26-30, 32-34, 36-40, and 42-47 are now pending.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 24, 26-30, 32-34, 36-40, and 42-47 have been considered but are moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "The information processing method according to claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 has been canceled. It is believed that the applicant intended to reference “claim 24” and the claim will be considered to be dependent on claim 24 for the sake of applying the prior art in the rejection below. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 24, 26, 27, 32, 34, 36, 37, 42, and 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0080025) in view of Gagliano et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0036307), hereinafter referred to as Gagliano, further in view of Huh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0208045), hereinafter referred to as Huh.
Yamada disclosed techniques for controlling access to stored files. In an analogous art, Gagliano disclosed techniques for authenticating communication responses between devices. Also in an analogous art, Huh disclosed techniques for secure data communications in an IoT network. All of these systems are directed toward the use of IP addresses for network connections.
Regarding claim 24, Yamada discloses an information processing method performed by a first device and a second device comprising: generating, by the first device, a network address of the first device (paragraph 131, projector has IP address); generating, by the second device, a network address of the second device (paragraph 29, smartphone connected to network); displaying, by the first device, a two-dimensional pattern associated with the network address of the first device (paragraph 131, QR code including IP address of projector); acquiring, by the second device, image data representing the two-dimensional pattern with an imaging unit (paragraph 132, smartphone captures image of QR code); specifying, by the second device, the network address of the first device based on the acquired image data (paragraph 132, obtains device information from QR code); and establishing communication between the first device and the second device (paragraph 136, sends projection request to projector).
Yamada does not explicitly state generating a secret key of the first device and a public key corresponding to the secret key, the network address of the first device being generated based solely on a hash value on the basis of the public key of the first device and a predetermined hash function, generating a secret key of the second device and a public key corresponding to the secret key, the network address of the second device being generated based solely on a hash value on the basis of the public key of the second device and a predetermined hash function, and the communication being secure communication between the first device and the second device based on the public key of the first device and the public key of the second device. However, generating network addresses in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Gagliano. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yamada by adding the ability for generating a secret key of the first device and a public key corresponding to the secret key, the network address of the first device being generated based solely on a hash value on the basis of the public key of the first device and a predetermined hash function, generating a secret key of the second device and a public key corresponding to the secret key, the network address of the second device being generated based solely on a hash value on the basis of the public key of the second device and a predetermined hash function, and the communication being secure communication between the first device and the second device based on the public key of the first device and the public key of the second device as provided by Gagliano (see paragraph 41, node has signing key and public key, and paragraph 20, nodes include host, router, etc., and paragraph 41, address based on hash of public key, and paragraph 16, signature verification). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that generating network addresses in this way would assist in securing communications (see Gagliano, paragraph 7).
The combination of Yamada and Gagliano does not explicitly state establishing the secure communication between the first device and the second device by encrypting transmission data to and from the first device and the second device based on the public key of the first device and the public key of the second device. However, securing communication in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Huh. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada and Gagliano by adding the ability for establishing the secure communication between the first device and the second device by encrypting transmission data to and from the first device and the second device based on the public key of the first device and the public key of the second device as provided by Huh (see paragraph 40, generates encryption key using public key of first device and public key of second device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that securing communications in this way would assist in preventing a third party from identifying the devices while encrypted data is exchanged (see Huh, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh discloses wherein the data transmitted to the first device comprises a display screen of the second device (Yamada, paragraph 136, sends projection file to projector and projector projects projection file).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh discloses receiving, by the second device, image data representing a display screen of a third device that is connected to the second device (Yamada, paragraph 136, information storage apparatus sends projection file to smartphone); and transmitting, by the second device, data including the image data to the first device by using the network address of the first device (Yamada, paragraph 136, smartphone sends projection file to projector).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh discloses wherein the two-dimensional pattern includes at least one of a one-dimensional or two-dimensional bar code (Yamada, paragraph 131, QR code).
Regarding claim 34, Yamada discloses an information processing system comprising: a first device (paragraph 131, projector); and a second device comprising an imaging unit (paragraph 131, smartphone), wherein the first device is configured to perform operations comprising: generating a network address of the first device (paragraph 131, projector has IP address); and displaying a two-dimensional pattern associated with the network address of the first device (paragraph 131, QR code including IP address of projector), and the second device is configured to perform operations comprising: generating a network address of the second device (paragraph 29, smartphone connected to network); acquiring image data representing the two-dimensional pattern from the imaging unit (paragraph 132, smartphone captures image of QR code); specifying the network address of the first device based on the acquired image data (paragraph 132, obtains device information from QR code); and establishing communication between the first device and the second device (paragraph 136, sends projection request to projector).
Yamada does not explicitly state generating a secret key and a public key corresponding to the secret key, the network address of the first device being generated based solely on a hash value on the basis of the public key of the first device and a predetermined hash function, generating a secret key and a public key corresponding to the secret key, the network address of the second device being generated based solely on a hash value on the basis of the public key of the second device and a predetermined hash function, and the communication being secure communication between the first device and the second device based on the public key of the first device and the public key of the second device. However, generating network addresses in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Gagliano. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yamada by adding the ability for generating a secret key and a public key corresponding to the secret key, the network address of the first device being generated based solely on a hash value on the basis of the public key of the first device and a predetermined hash function, generating a secret key and a public key corresponding to the secret key, the network address of the second device being generated based solely on a hash value on the basis of the public key of the second device and a predetermined hash function, and the communication being secure communication between the first device and the second device based on the public key of the first device and the public key of the second device as provided by Gagliano (see paragraph 41, node has signing key and public key, and paragraph 20, nodes include host, router, etc., and paragraph 41, address based on hash of public key, and paragraph 16, signature verification). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that generating network addresses in this way would assist in securing communications (see Gagliano, paragraph 7).
The combination of Yamada and Gagliano does not explicitly state establishing the secure communication between the first device and the second device by encrypting transmission data to and from the first device and the second device based on the public key of the first device and the public key of the second device. However, securing communication in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Huh. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada and Gagliano by adding the ability for establishing the secure communication between the first device and the second device by encrypting transmission data to and from the first device and the second device based on the public key of the first device and the public key of the second device as provided by Huh (see paragraph 40, generates encryption key using public key of first device and public key of second device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that securing communications in this way would assist in preventing a third party from identifying the devices while encrypted data is exchanged (see Huh, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh discloses wherein the data transmitted to the first device comprises a display screen of the second device (Yamada, paragraph 136, sends projection file to projector and projector projects projection file).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh discloses wherein the operations performed by the second device further comprise: receiving image data representing a display screen of a third device that is connected to the second device (Yamada, paragraph 136, information storage apparatus sends projection file to smartphone); and transmitting data including the image data to the first device by using the network address of the first device (Yamada, paragraph 136, smartphone sends projection file to projector).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh discloses wherein the two-dimensional pattern includes at least one of a one-dimensional or two-dimensional bar code (Yamada, paragraph 131, QR code).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh discloses acquiring, by the second device, a digital certificate associated with the public key of the first device (Gagliano, paragraph 40, communicates certificate to host).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh discloses wherein the operations performed by the second device further comprise acquiring a digital certificate associated with the public key of the first device (Gagliano, paragraph 40, communicates certificate to host).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh discloses wherein the first device is a personal computer, smartphone, tablet, projector, smart home appliance, vehicle navigation system, or printer; and the second device is a personal computer, smartphone, tablet, or wearable device (Yamada, paragraph 131, projector, and paragraph 132, smartphone).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh discloses wherein the first device is a personal computer, smartphone, tablet, projector, smart home appliance, vehicle navigation system, or printer; and the second device is a personal computer, smartphone, tablet, or wearable device (Yamada, paragraph 131, projector, and paragraph 132, smartphone).
Claims 28-30 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Gagliano, in view of Huh, further in view of Ruparelia et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0364729), hereinafter referred to as Ruparelia.
The combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh disclosed techniques for controlling access to stored files. In an analogous art, Ruparelia disclosed techniques for securely pairing devices. Both systems are directed toward authenticating a user device for access to services.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh does not explicitly state determining whether or not the second device exists in vicinity of the first device and permitting communication connection between the first device and the second device when the second device exists in the vicinity of the first device. However, verifying user vicinity in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Ruparelia. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh by adding the ability for determining whether or not the second device exists in vicinity of the first device and permitting communication connection between the first device and the second device when the second device exists in the vicinity of the first device as provided by Ruparelia (see paragraph 62, pairing request based on vicinity, and paragraph 66, pairing is successful). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that verifying user vicinity in this way would assist in facilitating pairing between a user device and a terminal (see Ruparelia, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, Huh, and Ruparelia discloses wherein the determining whether or not the second device exists in the vicinity of the first device is based on a user input operation on the first device (Ruparelia, figure 7 and paragraph 66, passcode sent to kiosk).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, Huh, and Ruparelia discloses wherein the determining whether or not the second device exists in the vicinity of the first device is based on a one-time password displayed on the first device (Ruparelia, paragraph 66, kiosk displays passcode and passcode is unique).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh does not explicitly state wherein the operations performed by the first device further comprise determining whether or not the second device exists in vicinity of the first device and permitting communication connection between the first device and the second device when the second device exists in the vicinity of the first device. However, verifying user vicinity in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Ruparelia. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh by adding the ability that the operations performed by the first device further comprise determining whether or not the second device exists in vicinity of the first device and permitting communication connection between the first device and the second device when the second device exists in the vicinity of the first device as provided by Ruparelia (see paragraph 62, pairing request based on vicinity, and paragraph 66, pairing is successful). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that verifying user vicinity in this way would assist in facilitating pairing between a user device and a terminal (see Ruparelia, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, Huh, and Ruparelia discloses wherein the determining whether or not the second device exists in the vicinity of the first device is based on a user input operation on the first device (Ruparelia, figure 7 and paragraph 66, passcode sent to kiosk).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, Huh, and Ruparelia discloses wherein the determining whether or not the second device exists in the vicinity of the first device is based on a one-time password displayed on the first device (Ruparelia, paragraph 66, kiosk displays passcode and passcode is unique).
Claims 33 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Gagliano, in view of Huh, further in view of Yang (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0266371).
The combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh disclosed techniques for controlling access to stored files. In an analogous art, Yang disclosed techniques for generating and utilizing bar codes. Both systems are directed toward the use of bar codes.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh does not explicitly state wherein the two-dimensional pattern includes a plurality of divided regions, and each of the plurality of divided regions includes color information associated with a part of the network address of the first device. However, utilizing color bar codes was well known in the art as evidenced by Yang. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh by adding the ability that the two-dimensional pattern includes a plurality of divided regions, and each of the plurality of divided regions includes color information associated with a part of the network address of the first device as provided by Yang (see paragraph 10, bar code contains color sequence of various colors). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that utilizing a color bar code would allow the bar code to contain more information than a conventional bar code (see Yang, paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh does not explicitly state wherein the two-dimensional pattern includes a plurality of divided regions, and each of the plurality of divided regions includes color information associated with a part of the network address of the first device. However, utilizing color bar codes was well known in the art as evidenced by Yang. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Gagliano, and Huh by adding the ability that the two-dimensional pattern includes a plurality of divided regions, and each of the plurality of divided regions includes color information associated with a part of the network address of the first device as provided by Yang (see paragraph 10, bar code contains color sequence of various colors). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that utilizing a color bar code would allow the bar code to contain more information than a conventional bar code (see Yang, paragraph 10).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Victor Lesniewski whose telephone number is (571)272-2812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Victor Lesniewski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights