DETAILED 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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-13, 15-16, 18-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-10 filed 05/26/2026, with respect to claim 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of 02/24/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 with respect to claims 1, 7-9 and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11-12 :
“Without conceding that James (or any other reference of record) teaches or suggests any other claim element, Applicant respectfully submits that James fails to teach or suggest at least the foregoing recitations of amended Claim 1…Thus, because James and Feng do not teach or suggest at least the above elements…Nor could James and Feng, alone or in combination with any reference of record, render Claim 1 obvious, as no such combination would yield all of the elements in the presently recited claims…”
Examiner respectfully disagree because, after carefully reviewed by examiner of previously cited reference i.e James, examiner believes that James still disclose amended portion of claim 1 i.e “determining, based on ” James disclose in [Col 13, lines 24-27], the interpreter can analyze a transcription that reads “turn on the lights,” and can determine that the phrase (=received set of words) “turn on” corresponds to an action of activating or turning on a device and [Col 14, lines 13-17] disclose that accessing a device topology representation associated with the user…
Applicant argues on page 12:
“Garner discusses transmitting a first audio segment to a user, receiving from the user a description of that audio segment, comparing the received description to a stored description, selecting an authentication token based on the comparison, and transmitting the authentication token to the device. See Garner at abstract; claims 1, 10, and 18. Garner's audio segment and authentication token are not the claimed system key. The audio segment is not retrieved by a device from a secure network resource via an encrypted virtual connection based on an invocation word, and the authentication token is selected after comparison of the user's response; it is not a word in a set of words provided by the device to the user as presently claimed…”.
Examiner respectfully disagree because “applicant argues that the authentication token disclosed by the cited reference is not the claimed system key”. However, the claim does not define or limit the “system key” as any particular type of key. Under broadest reasonable interpretation “authentication token” reads on “system key”.
After carefully reviewed by examiner of previously cited reference i.e Garner, IV, examiner believes that Garner, IV still disclose amended portion of claim 2 i.e “the second system word corresponding to the system key”. Garner, IV disclose in [Col 8, lines 46-48], that the authentication token (=system key) then be authenticated as corresponding to the user providing the second audio segment (=second system word and [Col 8, lines 5-13], If the response is determined to match the description, the authentication token may be validated (e.g., at operation 235). For example, the authentication token may be validated as corresponding to the user providing the response. The user may be authenticated using the validated authentication token (e.g., at operation 240). For example, the secured information requested by the user may be transmitted to a device of the user. Examiner’s Note: Examiner is interpreting that “Authentication token” is being validated in order to authenticating user and provide requested secured information to the user. The authentication token serve the value by which the speech recognition system verifies the identity or authorization of the user before processing or granting the access to the secured information. Thus, “Authentication toke: performs the same function as the claimed “system key”. “
Applicant’s argument with respect to amended limitation of “establishing, by a device over a wireless network, an encrypted virtual connection with a secure network resource the set of words provided by the device comprising a system key, the system key being retrieved by the device from the secure network resource via the encrypted virtual connection based on an invocation word included in the received set of words” is moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (U. S. Pat. No. 10,699,707 B2) (hereinafter “James”) in view of Feng et al (U. S. PGPub. No. 2011/0231913 A1) (hereinafter “Feng”); and in further view of Frost et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2016/0021057 A1) (hereinafter “Frost”);
Regarding claim 1, James system teaches:
receiving, by the device, a set of words provided by a user (James: [Col 2, lines 52-55], a voice utterance can be received from a user of a control device. The voice utterance can be a command (=set of words) spoken by a user proximate the user device configured to control one or more smart devices. [Col 4, lines 4-7], The general language model can include a plurality of common phrases and can correlate probability estimates with each phrase. Each phrase can contain a sequence of one or more words) ,
a portion of the received set of words being in response to a portion of a set of words provided by the device (James: [Col 4, lines 7], Each phrase (=a portion of set of words) can contain a sequence of one or more words. [Col 7, lines 6-10], Control device 102 can be any suitable device configured to monitor for and receive a voice utterance from a user. As indicated, the voice utterance can be a sentence or phrase (=a portion of set of words) spoken by the user with the intent of controlling one or more smart devices)
determining, by the device and via natural language processing, a scene of the user (James: (Col 5, lines 53-67], For instance, in response to receiving a voice utterance from a user, a location of the user can be determined. The location can be determined using various suitable location determination techniques. The location determination technique can be determined based at least in part on the control device to which the user provides the voice utterance. [Col 5, lines 62-67], (16) The voice utterance can be interpreted to determine a control command intended by the user for one or more smart devices. In this regard, speech recognition (examiner note: speech recognitions uses natural language processing) can be performed on the voice utterance based at least in part on the device topology representation. For instance, data indicative of the voice utterance can be provided to one or more language models to determine a transcription of the voice utterance) based (James: [Col 6, lines 10-14], in response to receiving a transcription that reads “turn on the lights (=a content of the set of words),” the user location can be determined and mapped to one or more rooms and/or structures specified in the device topology representation to determine the structure and room in which the user is located.
determining, (James: [Col 13, lines 24-27], the interpreter 110 can analyze a transcription that reads “turn on the lights,” and can determine that the phrase (=received set of words) “turn on” corresponds to an action of activating or turning on a device. [Col 14, lines 13-17], (56) At (204), method (200) can include accessing a device topology representation associated with the user. As indicated, the user can set up or construct a device topology representation defining a topology of one or more structures associated with the user…the device topology representation can provide allow a user to organize a smart home or internet of things network by location of the devices)
James does not disclose:
identifying, by the device, a proof of work (POW) problem based on the determined scene;
presenting, by the device, the POW problem to the user;
receiving, by the device, a solution from the user to the POW problem;
analyzing, by the device, the solution, and determining, based on the analysis and the received set of words, whether access to the secure network resource is granted;
and enabling access, by the device over a network, to the network resource based on the access determination, wherein access is enabled when the solution is determined to be correct.
However, in an analogous art, Feng teaches:
identifying, by the device, a proof of work (POW) problem based on the determined scene (Feng: [0022] Proof-of-work or client puzzle systems consist of three distinct parts. The issuer generates and delivers a puzzle to the client on behalf of the server. [0032] The location component is any variable based on a place, position, activity, or situation);
presenting, by the device, the POW problem to the user (Feng: [0022], The issuer generates and delivers a puzzle to the client on behalf of the server);
receiving, by the device, a solution from the user to the POW problem (Feng: [0022], The solver generates solutions to puzzles received by the client);
analyzing, by the device, the solution, and determining, based on the analysis (Feng: [0022], The verifier denies or accepts solutions sent to the server based on their freshness and validity);
and enabling access, by the device over the wireless network, to the secure network resource based on the access determination (Feng: [0022], If the server receives a request without a valid puzzle or an incorrect answer, the request is ignored and a valid puzzle is sent to the client. The puzzle given to the client has a difficulty setting that determines how much computation it must perform before generating an answer. After receiving and solving the puzzle, the client attaches both the puzzle and answer when resending the request. Upon receiving the answer, the server verifies its correctness before allowing the client access).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify James’s method of receiving a voice utterance from the user and determining the current location of the user by applying Feng’s method of allowing the access to the application or some information or site by using challenge-response authentication relating to cryptographic puzzles or proof-of-work puzzles whose difficulty is based on one or more time component, location component, reputation component, usage component, content component, and social networking component, in order to prevent a denial-of-service ("DoS") attack or distributed denial-of-service ("DDoS") attack (Feng: [0003]).
James in view of Feng does not explicitly disclose:
establishing, by a device over a wireless network, an encrypted virtual connection with a secure network resource;
the set of words provided by the device comprising a system key, the system key being retrieved by the device from the secure network resource via the encrypted virtual connection based on an invocation word included in the received set of words;
However, in an analogous art, Frost teach:
establishing, by a device over a wireless network, an encrypted virtual connection with a secure network resource (Frost: [0235], the password is sent via any type and form of secure channel or connection, such as an encrypted tunnel (=encrypted virtual connection) or virtual private network. [0112], the vServer 275 establishes a connection to a service 270 of a server 106. [0114] the appliance 200 establishes a VPN. [0116] In some embodiments, the appliance 200 provides a SSL VPN connection 280 between a client 102 and a server 106. For example, a client 102 on a first network 102 requests to establish a connection to a server 106 on a second network 104'. [0188], SSL VPN connectivity. Examiner’s Note: Encrypted tunnel and/or An SSL (now called TLS) VPN is a type of encrypted VPN. An encrypted tunnel and an encrypted VPN connection are functionally the same thing. An encrypted tunnel acts as a Virtual Private Network (VPN) by wrapping your data packets in protective, mathematical layers (encapsulation). This ensures that your internet traffic is unreadable to ISPs and hackers. Therefore SSL VPN connection reads on encrypted virtual connection as claimed), the set of words provided by the device comprising a system key (Frost: [0235], The key included into a portion of an access code. The access code revealed (=provided) to the customer as a reference to the requested maintenance or service. The key also be generated from any shared information, such as another key and/or using any type and form of algorithm), the system key being retrieved by the device from the secure network resource via the encrypted virtual connection based on an invocation word included in the received set of words; (Frost: [0235], the password is sent via any type and form of secure channel or connection, such as an encrypted tunnel or virtual private network. The password may be generated using any type and form of key. The key (=system key=password) may be included into a portion of an access code (=received set of words). The access code may be revealed to the customer (=retrieved by the user device from the secure network resource) as a reference to the requested maintenance or service. The key may also be generated from any shared information, such as another key and/or using any type and form of algorithm)
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify James in view of Feng by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Frost of establishing secure encrypted tunnel and sending generated password/key via secure established connection which is included in access code. The motivation is to prevent from exposing the underlying Operating System to the customer or other persons. Such VA may be normally locked down from any external access except for accesses via ports for communication with the VA (Frost: [0004])
Regarding claim 7, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
identifying, by the device, a type of POW problem based on the scene (Feng: [0002], proof-of-work puzzles--whose difficulty (=examiner is interpreting that type of POW problems are the difficulty of the POW puzzles which is depend on given components below) is based on one or more time component, location component (=scene), reputation component, usage component, content component, and social networking component. [0022], The issuer generates and delivers a puzzle to the client on behalf of the server. [0029] Computational puzzles are parameterized by a difficulty variable. The invention assigns the computational puzzle difficulty (=type of POW problem) based on at least one component selected from the group of components comprising of: time component, location component, reputation component, usage component, content component, and social networking component. [0063], a server-side issuer that creates and delivers a puzzle to the client, a client-side solver that generates and returns a puzzle solution to the server, and a server-side verifier that denies or accepts solutions based on validity. An obstacle to the deployment of proof-of-work puzzles within computer systems is that they require modifications to end hosts, network protocols, or routers).
and randomly selecting, by the device, a specific POW problem from a set of POW problems of the identified type (Feng: [0022], Based on their current and past behavior, they are then issued puzzles of appropriate difficulty. The puzzle difficulty is expressed in terms of units of work, which are uniform-length computations such as the execution of a hash function. A proof-of-work scheme alters the operation of a network protocol so that a client must return their puzzle along with a correct answer before being granted service. [0043] To tackle the problem of online ticket robots and change the economics for scalpers employing them, a web-based proof-of-work mechanism issues client-specific puzzles with difficulty determined as a function of the client's geographic distance from the event…The invention leverages modern Internet Protocol geolocation databases--which are 90% accurate in resolving the geographic location of each client to within 25 miles--and adaptively issues distant clients more difficult puzzles).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify James’s method of receiving a voice utterance from the user and determining the current location of the user by applying Feng’s method of presenting POW problem to the user based on determined surrounding, in order to match the amount of work a client performs with the level of protection a server might require and to prevent the proof-of-work mechanism from becoming a target for attack (Feng: [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, the James in view of Feng teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the POW problem requests a calculation or manipulation by the user, wherein a value of the calculation or manipulation is preset by the user (Feng: [0024] The invention efficiently issues and validates multiple proof-of-work computational puzzles from a single proof-of-work puzzle, specifically a time-lock puzzle. The issuer or server generates p and q, two large prime numbers as well as a difficulty t that determines the amount of work a client must perform. The server then calculates the modulus n=p.times.q, randomly selects a number a, and sends the client a, t, and n. The client must then return an answer A such that A=a.sup.(2 t) mod n. The server can check that A is correct by performing a short-cut computation.phi.=(p-1).times.(q-1), r=2.sup.t mod .phi., and A'=a.sup.r mod n. If A matches A', then the client has performed the computation accurate).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify James’s method of receiving a voice utterance from the user and determining the current location of the user by applying Feng’s method of calculation solution provided by the user, in order to validate the solution of the POW problem provided by the user (Feng: [0003]).
Regarding claim 9, the James in view of Feng teaches:
The method of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above),
wherein the determination related to the solution is based on the value (Feng: [0022], The puzzle difficulty is expressed in terms of units of work, which are uniform-length computations such as the execution of a hash function. A proof-of-work scheme alters the operation of a network protocol so that a client must return their puzzle along with a correct answer before being granted service. If the server receives a request without a valid puzzle or an incorrect answer, the request is ignored and a valid puzzle is sent to the client. The puzzle given to the client has a difficulty setting that determines how much computation it must perform before generating an answer. After receiving and solving the puzzle, the client attaches both the puzzle and answer when resending the request. Upon receiving the answer, the server verifies its correctness before allowing the client access. [0063] Proof-of-work mechanisms consist of three subcomponents: a server-side issuer that creates and delivers a puzzle to the client, a client-side solver that generates and returns a puzzle solution to the server, and a server-side verifier that denies or accepts solutions based on validity)
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify James’s method of receiving a voice utterance from the user and determining the current location of the user by applying Feng’s method of determining solution of the POW problem provided by the user, in order to validate the solution of the POW problem provided by the user (Feng: [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, James teaches:
a processor configured to (James: [Col 18, lines 14-27], (78) The one or more processors 712 can include any suitable processing device, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller, integrated circuit, logic device, or other suitable processing device. The one or more memory devices 714 can include one or more computer-readable media, including, but not limited to, non-transitory computer-readable media, RAM, ROM, hard drives, flash drives, or other memory devices. The one or more memory devices 714 can store information accessible by the one or more processors 712, including computer-readable instructions 716 that can be executed by the one or more processors 712. The instructions 716 can be any set of instructions that when executed by the one or more processors 712, cause the one or more processors 712 to perform operations):
This claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 1 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (device medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 3, and the same rationale of rejection is used where applicable.
Regarding claim 17, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 7, and the same rationale of rejection is used where applicable.
Regarding claim 18, James teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium tangibly encoded with instructions (James: [Col 18, lines 17-21], The one or more memory devices 714 can include one or more computer-readable media, including, but not limited to, non-transitory computer-readable media, RAM, ROM, hard drives, flash drives, or other memory devices), that when executed by a processor of a device, perform a method comprising (James: [Col 18, lines 14-27], (78) The one or more processors 712 can include any suitable processing device, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller, integrated circuit, logic device, or other suitable processing device. The one or more memory devices 714 can include one or more computer-readable media, including, but not limited to, non-transitory computer-readable media, RAM, ROM, hard drives, flash drives, or other memory devices. The one or more memory devices 714 can store information accessible by the one or more processors 712, including computer-readable instructions 716 that can be executed by the one or more processors 712. The instructions 716 can be any set of instructions that when executed by the one or more processors 712, cause the one or more processors 712 to perform operations):
This claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 1 and 15 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (non-transitory medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 3 and 16, and the same rationale of rejection is used where applicable.
Regarding claim 20, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 7 and 17, and the same rationale of rejection is used where applicable.
Claim(s) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (U. S. Pat. No. 10,699,707 B2) (hereinafter “James”) in view of Feng et al (U. S. PGPub. No. 2011/0231913 A1) (hereinafter “Feng”) and Frost et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2016/0021057 A1) (hereinafter “Frost”); and in further view of Garner, IV et al (U. S. Pat. No. 10,979,423 B1) (hereinafter “Garner IV”)
Regarding claim 2, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
The above cited combination of James in view of Feng and Frost does not explicitly teaches:
wherein receiving the set of words provided by the user comprises receiving an invocation word and a closing word, wherein the set of words output by the device comprise a first system word and a second system word, the second system word corresponding to the system key.
However, in an analogous art, Garner, IV teaches:
wherein receiving the set of words provided by the user comprises receiving an invocation word (Garner, IV: [Col 4, lines 36-40], the user 105 may request an account balance for a brokerage account held by a financial institution providing a financial services service to a voice-enabled assistant by speaking “what is the balance of my brokerage account?” (=Invocation word) and a closing word (Garner, IV: [Col 4, lines 61-65], (22) The authentication engine 115 may receive the second description of the first audio segment from the device 110 of the user 105 in response to the transmission of the first audio segment. For example, the user may respond to the prompt for a description by saying “That is my dog, Spot, barking” (=Closing word)), wherein the set of words output by the device comprise a first system word and a second system word (Garner, IV: [Col 4, lines 43-47], (21) In response to receiving the request for authentication, the output generator 135 may transmit the first audio segment to the device 110 to be played for the user 105. For example, the audio file including the barking dog may be played to the user 105 using the device 110).
the second system word corresponding to the system key (Garner, IV: [Col 8, lines 46-48], The authentication token (=system key) then be authenticated as corresponding to the user providing the second audio segment (=second system word/passphrase). [Col 8, lines 5-13], If the response is determined to match the description, the authentication token may be validated (e.g., at operation 235). For example, the authentication token may be validated as corresponding to the user providing the response. The user may be authenticated using the validated authentication token (e.g., at operation 240). For example, the secured information requested by the user may be transmitted to a device of the user. Examiner’s Note: Examiner is interpreting that “Authentication token” is being validated in order to authenticating user and provide requested secured information to the user. The authentication token serve the value by which the speech recognition system verifies the identity or authorization of the user before processing or granting the access to the secured information. Thus, “Authentication toke: performs the same function as the claimed “system key”.)
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify James in view of Feng and Frost by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Garner, IV of receiving and sending audio segments using interactive audio communication between user and the system in order to authenticate the user. The motivation is to provide service authentication may allow the user to verify the system being interacted with is authentic (e.g., the service with which they intend to interact with, etc.) to reduce the incidence of phishing and other malicious data collection techniques (Garner, IV: [Col 2, lines 12,16]).
Regarding claim 3, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above),
receiving, by the device from the user, the invocation word (Garner, IV: [Col 4, lines 36-40], the user 105 may request an account balance for a brokerage account held by a financial institution providing a financial services service to a voice-enabled assistant by speaking “what is the balance of my brokerage account?” (=Invocation word);
outputting, by the device in response to the invocation word, the first system word (Garner, IV : [Col 4, lines 43-47], (21) In response to receiving the request for authentication, the output generator 135 may transmit the first audio segment to the device 110 to be played for the user 105. For example, the audio file including (=first system word) the barking dog may be played to the user 105 using the device 110).
outputting, by the device, after outputting the first system word, the second system word (Garner, IV: [Col 4, lines 70-56], For example, the device 110 may output audio stating “please provide a description for the audio you just heard.”(=Second system word). In response, and knowing that the audio was a clip provided by the user 105, the user 105 may speak a description of the audio that has just been output)
and receiving, by the device from the user, the closing word (Garner, IV: [Col 4, lines 61-65], (22) The authentication engine 115 may receive the second description of the first audio segment from the device 110 of the user 105 in response to the transmission of the first audio segment. For example, the user may respond to the prompt for a description by saying “That is my dog, Spot, barking” (=Closing word)),
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify James in view of Feng and Frost by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Garner, IV of receiving and sending audio segments using interactive audio communication between user and the system in order to authenticate the user. The motivation is to provide service authentication may allow the user to verify the system being interacted with is authentic (e.g., the service with which they intend to interact with, etc.) to reduce the incidence of phishing and other malicious data collection techniques (Garner, IV: [Col 2, lines 12,16]).
Regarding claim 4, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above),
wherein the set of words provided by the user and the set of words provided by the device are associated with a predefined list of words (James: [Col 3, lines 20-29], (13) The user can assign one or more identifiers to the smart devices within the device topology representation. The identifiers can be chosen by the user and associated with the respective smart devices within the device topology representation. The identifier(s) can include nicknames and/or aliases selected for the smart devices by the user (e.g. couch lamp, front door lock, bedroom speaker, etc (=examiner interpreting these identifier as “predefined list of words”). In this manner, the identifiers can be names or aliases of the respective smart devices that the user is likely to use when providing voice utterances for controlling the smart devices)
wherein the list is part of a collection of lists accessible over the wireless network, wherein the list is identifiable by the invocation word (James: [Col 8, lines 27-35], (33) FIG. 3 depicts a block diagram of an example device topology representation 116 according to example embodiments of the present disclosure. The device topology representation 116 defines a topology of a plurality of smart devices within a plurality of structures associated with the user. In particular, the structures include a main home 152, a beach house 154, and an office 156 (=locations) associated with the user).
Regarding claim 5, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above),
wherein each list of the collection of lists corresponds to a type of scene respective type of surrounding of a plurality of types of surroundings (James: [Col 5, lines 61-65], For instance, control device is a smart device that is specified in the device topology representation, the user location can be mapped to the structure and/or room to which the control device is assigned in the device topology representation. [Col 3, lines 20-29], (13) The user can assign one or more identifiers to the smart devices within the device topology representation. The identifiers can be chosen by the user and associated with the respective smart devices within the device topology representation. The identifier(s) can include nicknames and/or aliases selected for the smart devices by the user (e.g. couch lamp, front door lock, bedroom speaker, etc (=examiner interpreting these identifier as “predefined list of words” .). In this manner, the identifiers can be names or aliases of the respective smart devices that the user is likely to use when providing voice utterances for controlling the smart devices
wherein the plurality of types of surroundings includes at least one of type of scene is one of a public environment scene a semi-public environment scene and, or a private environment scene (James: [Col 5, lines 53-67], in response to receiving a voice utterance from a user, a location of the user can be determined. The location can be determined using various suitable location determination techniques. The location determination technique can be determined based at least in part on the control device to which the user provides the voice utterance)) [Col 8, lines 27-35], (33) FIG. 3 depicts a block diagram of an example device topology representation 116 according to example embodiments of the present disclosure. The device topology representation 116 defines a topology of a plurality of smart devices within a plurality of structures associated with the user. In particular, the structures include a main home 152, a beach house 154, and an office 156 (=locations) associated with the user).
Regarding claim 6, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
the James in view of Feng teaches does not explicitly disclose:
wherein receiving the set of words provided by the user comprises audibly detecting spoken words by the user, wherein the set of words output by the device are audibly output by the device.
However, in an analogous art, Garner, IV teaches:
wherein receiving the set of words provided by the user comprises audibly detecting spoken words by the user (Garner,IV: [Col 7, lines 39-42], A response may be received from the user (e.g., at operation 215). The response may include another audio segment, text, etc. describing the audio segment transmitted to the user device. [Col 7, lines 64-65], another audio segment may be obtained including a spoken description of the audio segment transmitted to the user.),
wherein the set of words output by the device are audibly output by the device (Garner, Vi: [Col2, lines 48-49], (11) During authentication, the audio file may be output for the user. [Col 4, lines 43-45], (21) In response to receiving the request for authentication, the output generator 135 may transmit the first audio segment to the device 110 to be played for the user 105. [Col 7, lines 37-38], The audio segment may be transmitted to a user device (e.g., at operation 210).
Claim(s) 10‐14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (U. S. Pat. No. 10,699,707 B2) (hereinafter “James”) in view of Feng et al (U. S. PGPub. No. 2011/0231913 A1) (hereinafter “Feng”) and Frost et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2016/0021057 A1) (hereinafter “Frost”); and further in view of Innes et al (U. S. PGPub. No 2021/0021605 A1) (hereinafter “Innes”).
Regarding claim 10, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
The James in view of Feng fails to teach:
performing multi-factor authentication (MFA) processing when the solution is determined to be not correct, wherein access to the secure network resource is enabled when the MFA processing is successfully completed;
Innes, in similar field of endeavor, teaches:
performing multi-factor authentication (MFA) processing when the solution is determined to be not correct, wherein access to the secure network resource is enabled when the MFA processing is successfully completed (Innes: [0105], provides for the use of an OTP (one time password) 620 without the use of an AD (active directory) 622 password for access to one or more applications. [0121]: provides for the user may be prompted for a personal identification number (PIN) or another credential for authentication. The client agent 703 may capture the PIN, optionally store the PIN, and send the PIN, over a network connection, to the virtual agent 723 at the server 721);
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify James in view of Feng and Frost by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Innes of for performing multifactor authentication. The motivation is to authenticate user to successfully communicate in the network in secured way and granting or denying a client device access to one or more resources in a remote computing environment (Innes: [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 11, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
The combination of James in view of Feng and Frost fails to teaches:
receiving a logout instruction from the user related to the secure network resource, wherein access to the device is maintained despite the user being logged out of the secure network resource
Innes, in similar field of endeavor, teaches:
receiving a logout instruction from the user related to the secure network resource, (Innes: [0103], provides for an inactivity timeout may be implemented, wherein after a policy-defined period of inactivity, a user session is terminated (may request to logout instructions. [0257], provides for a disconnect may occur while an application running in the session is actively using a file on a network share. The OS may close the network connection, causing the application to see failures on any further I/O requests it makes with open handles. [0261], provides for [0261], provides for the technique of disconnecting published apps that are incompatible with the virtual desktop context on reconnect could be applied also to the case of applications that might not cope with being disconnected from network file servers or databases or other types of resource server, or that might not cope with being forcibly closed).
wherein access to the device is maintained despite the user being logged out of the secure network resource (Innes: [0240], provides for a user may reconnect to a remote session (e.g., a remote application or desktop session). The reconnection may use a different authentication method and/or a different security context as the original launch. [0241], At the OS level, this authentication (e.g., re-authentication of the currently logged on session user) may be used to confirm that the session may be unlocked because the correct user is present. After confirmed that the user is the correct user, the existing session may be made accessible so that the user can see and use the user's applications).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify James in view of Feng and Frost by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Innes of performing session timeout from the network resources and reconnect to the session using same device. The motivation is to ensure that nobody else can gain access to your account, prevent unauthorized access to the network resource and granting or denying a client device access to one or more resources in a remote computing environment (Innes: [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 12, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
The combination James in view of Feng fails to teaches:
wherein the enabled access to the secure network resource enables the user to perform create, read, update, delete (CRUD) operations in relation to data provided by the network resource;
Innes, in similar field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the enabled access to the secure network resource enables the user to perform create, read, update, delete (CRUD) operations in relation to data provided by the network resource (Innes: [0078], provides for the processing resources may be used to create information, read information, update information, delete information (CRUD Operations).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify James in view of Feng and Frost by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Innes of performing CRUD operations by using processing resources. The motivation is the user be able access network resource and then perform desired (CRUD) operations on an enterprise system and granting or denying a client device access to one or more resources in a remote computing environment (Innes: [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 13, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
the VPN connection corresponding to the encrypted virtual connection (Frost: [0235], the password is sent via any type and form of secure channel or connection, such as an encrypted tunnel (=encrypted virtual connection) or virtual private network. Examiner’s Note: Encrypted tunnel and/or An SSL (now called TLS) VPN is a type of encrypted VPN. An encrypted tunnel and an encrypted VPN connection are functionally the same thing. An encrypted tunnel acts as a Virtual Private Network (VPN) by wrapping your data packets in protective, mathematical layers (encapsulation). This ensures that your internet traffic is unreadable to ISPs and hackers. Therefore SSL VPN connection reads on encrypted virtual connection as claimed).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify James in view of Feng by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Frost of establishing secure encrypted tunnel and sending generated password/key via secure established connection which is included in access code. The motivation is to prevent from exposing the underlying Operating System to the customer or other persons. Such VA may be normally locked down from any external access except for accesses via ports for communication with the VA (Frost: [0004])
The combination of James in view of Feng and Frost fails to teaches:
performing single sign-on (SSO) on the device such that access to the device is based on the SSO;
and establishing a virtual private network (VPN) connection over the wireless network based on the SSO, the VPN connection corresponding to the encrypted virtual connection.
Innes, in similar field of endeavor, teaches:
performing single sign-on (SSO) on the device such that access to the device is based on the SSO (Innes: [0081], provides for the virtual private network connections may support and enable single-sign-on authentication processes. The single-sign-on processes may allow a user to provide a single set of authentication credentials, which are then verified by an authentication service. The authentication service may then grant to the user access to multiple enterprise resources, without requiring the user to provide authentication credentials to each individual enterprise resource).
and establishing a virtual private network (VPN) connection over the network based on the SSO (Innes: [0081], provides for the mobile device may connect to enterprise resources and enterprise services through virtual private network connections. [0082], provides for the virtual private network connections established).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify James in view of Feng and Frost by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Innes of performing SSO on the device and established VPN connection over the network. The motivation is to established VPN connection using SSO and granting or denying a client device access to one or more resources in a remote computing environment (Innes: [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 14, the James in view of Feng and Frost teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
The combination of James in view of Feng and Frost fails to teaches:
wherein the secure network resource is an enterprise platform;
Innes, in similar field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the network resource is an enterprise platform (Innes: [0081], provides for the mobile device may connect to enterprise resources and enterprise services at an enterprise, to the public Internet and the like).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify James in view of Feng and Frost by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Innes of where the mobile device may connect to enterprise resources and enterprise services at an enterprise to the public internet. The motivation is to establish a remote connection with enterprise platform and perform various operation and granting or denying a client device access to one or more resources in a remote computing environment (Innes: [Abstract]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to a disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Yuschik et al. (U. S. Pat No. 6,356,868 B1): A voiceprint identification system identifies and verifies a user from voice data collected from a single interaction with the user. The voice data is a number, word phrase or any utterance chosen by the user. A first speech-processor processes the voice data to produce first match criteria, and a second speech-processor processes the same voice data to produce second match criteria, the first match criteria being different than the second match criteria. The first match criteria is used to select a subset of authorized persons, and, for each selected authorized person, the authorized person's voice template is retrieved from a database. The retrieved voice templates are individually compared to the second match criteria until either the second match criteria matches one of the retrieved voice templates or all the retrieved voice templates have been compared without matching the second match criteria.
Brezinski et al. (U. S. Pat. No. 8,925,062 B1): Techniques for user authentication are disclosed. In some situations, the techniques include receiving, from a client device, an authentication request to access a network resource, the request including a user identifier, obtaining a security credential associated with the user identifier contained in the received request, generating an authorization code based on the obtained security credential, providing to the client device instructions to obtain first information corresponding to the generated authorization code, receiving, from the client device, the first information provided in response to the provided instructions, and, when the first information received from the client device corresponds to at least a portion of the generated authorization code, authorizing the client device to access the network resource.
Dyrmovskiy et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2014/0188468 A1): An apparatus, system and method for calculating passphrase variability are disclosed. The passphrase variability value can then be used for generating phonetically rich passwords in text-dependent speaker recognition systems, or for estimating the variability of the input passphrase in text-independent system during the enrolling process in a speech recognition security system.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 RUPALI DHAKAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3743. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights