DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to amendments and a request for continuation received on 11/19/2025. Claims 3-4, 7, 12-15, 17-18, 20, 22, 24, 31-32, 35, 40-42, 44-45, 47, 49, 51 and 57-82 were cancelled. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11, 29, 33-34, 37, and 56 are amended. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25-30, 33-34, 36-39, 43, 46, 48, 50, and 52-56 are examined and are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
08/05/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/19/2025, to claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11, 29, 33-34, 37, and 56 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/19/2025, to claims 9 and 37 are sufficient to overcome rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) to the aforementioned claim. Therefore, the rejections to claims 9 and 37 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Remarks regarding 103 have been considered, but have not been found persuasive.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the remarks that “Lee does not disclose, teach or suggest a priority value within the electronic key or adding the priority value to the electronic key as recited in claims 1, 29 and 56”. The argument is moot because newly added claim limitations, require new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the remarks that “Lee's does not disclose, teach or suggest increasing the priority value based on a number of contact tracing electronic key received from the specific wireless device as recited in claims 1, 29 and 56”. However, Examiner disagrees. Claim 6 recites: “the processor increases or decreases the priority value of the contact tracing electronic key based on a number of contact tracing electronic keys received from one of the wireless devices”, and device 101 of Lee receives a plurality of keys, determines priority among multiple keys, identifies whether additional keys exist, and changes the priority of keys whenever it receives additional keys. increasing the priority value of the key based on the number of electronic keys received from the specific wireless device (frequency of coming into contact, with one or more wireless devices) as Applicant argued in the remarks, was not in claim 6. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the remarks that “Lee's priority values are not included or added to the electronic keys”. The argument is moot because newly added claim limitations, require new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Applicant argues on page 13 of the remarks that “Lee's does not disclose, teach or suggest the processor decreases the priority value of the contact tracing electronic key based on the time of the contact tracing electronic key as recited in claim 6”. The argument is moot because newly added claim limitations, require new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments. [Please see 112(a) rejections regarding claims 6 and 34]
The remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In addition, Applicant’s remaining arguments filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25-30, 33-34, 36-39, 43, 46, 48, 50, and 52-56 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because newly added claim limitations requiring “ …. the data, flag or stamp comprises an identification and possibly a location, a priority value, a time, and a date”, “wherein the processor adds the location, a priority value, the time or the date to the one or more contact tracing electronic keys whenever the location, a priority value,”, and “wherein the processor increases the priority value of the contract tracing electronic key associated with a specific wireless device based on a number of contact tracing electronic keys received from the specific wireless device.” require new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In regard to claims 6 and 34, the claims as recited require decreasing the priority value of the contact tracing electronic key based on the time of the contact tracing electronic key. However, the recitation “decreasing the priority value of the contact tracing electronic key based on the time of the contact tracing electronic key” does not appear enabled by the disclosure. The originally filed Specification fails to disclose decreasing the priority value of the contact tracing electronic key based on the time of the contact tracing electronic key. There is no teaching or suggestion how a person having ordinary skill in the art would determine how to decrease the priority value of the key based on the time. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be any indication of a proper correlation between the priority value being decreased , based on the time of the key, that would enable a person having skill in the art to understand how decreasing has been made.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims; The claims necessitate a person having ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what “time” to use as an index in the decreasing step Without clear guidance on what the time is, it’s not possible to make or use the invention without undue experimentation.
(B) The nature of the invention; The term “decrease” and “time” as used in the claims is not common in the field of contact tracing electronic key.
(C) The state of the prior art; The term “time” as used in the claims is not readily known in the field of changing priority value at present.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill; A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the priority value associated with the recited “key” for every situation without undue experimentation.
(E) The level of predictability in the art; A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to predict how to determine the recited “decreasing” for every situation without undue experimentation.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; As explained above, the Specification fails to provide adequate direction to allow a person having ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention without undue experimentation
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to claim 34, the claim is also rejected under the same statute as they inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 6 above.
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.
Claims 1, 29, and 56 are 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 1 recites, “the data, flag or stamp comprises an identification and possibly a location, a priority value, a time, and a date”. The word “possibly” shows that the data, flag or stamp comprises an identification and not necessarily a location, a priority value, … , and therefore makes the claim indefinite.
Claims 29 and 56 are rejected for the same reason.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 11, 169, 21, 23, 25-30, 33, 37, 39, 46, 47, 50, and 52-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Darnell (US 2017/0134382) in view of “TraceSecure: Towards Privacy Preserving, Contact Tracing” by James Bell, 8th April 2020, (hereinafter “Bell”), and further in view of Bradley (US 2019/0373469).
Regarding claim 1, Darnell discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A device comprising: (Darnell, Para. [0035], a mobile computing device comprising)
a wireless transceiver; a memory; a processor communicably coupled to the wireless transceiver and the memory, (Darnell, Paras. [0035], [0077], Fig. 4, a mobile computing device comprising a processor, memory, a transceiver configured for local point-to-point communication).
wherein the one or more electronic keys comprises a data, a flag or a stamp and the data, flag or stamp comprises an identification and possibly a location, a priority value, a time, and a date, and wherein the processor adds the location, a priority value, the time or the date to the one or more electronic keys whenever the location, a priority value, the time or the date is not included in the one or more electronic keys. (Darnell, Paras. [0096]-[0099], Fig. 9, the virtual key (e.g., the encrypted portion of the virtual key) includes additional pieces of information (i.e., a data, or …), such as, for example, a validation code, a unique identifier (i.e., an identification). While this example includes AES encryption using a timestamp for the seed value, other embodiments include different types of seed values and/or different types of encryption protocols (i.e., a time and a date) Paras. [0100]-[0103], the data includes additional information such as user’s location, current date or time).
Darnell discloses adding metadata to the one or more electronic keys, Darnell does not explicitly disclose:
contact tracing electronic keys,
wherein the processor receives one or more contact tracing electronic keys from one or more wireless devices whenever the processor is nearby the one or more wireless devices, and stores the one or more contact tracing electronic keys in the memory;
However, Bell in the same field of endeavor discloses:
contact tracing electronic keys, (Bell, 1.1 Contact Tracing via Bluetooth: exchange short tokens).
wherein the processor receives one or more contact tracing electronic keys from one or more wireless devices whenever the processor is nearby the one or more wireless devices, (Bell, 1.1 Contact Tracing via Bluetooth: users being able to exchange Bluetooth signals. With Bluetooth, the proximity of people can be estimated by the strength of the signals between their devices. A mechanism for nearby phones to exchange short tokens (i.e., contact tracing electronic keys) if the devices come within 2 meters of each other (i.e., nearby). Therefore, the processor of the user device receives contact tracing electronic keys/tokens from nearby wireless devices when within close proximity which is 2 meters).
and stores the one or more contact tracing electronic keys in the memory; (Bell, 1.2.1 Baseline: TraceTogether, Pg. 3: When devices are “in contact” the devices exchange random strings as tokens, these tokens act as a UID for the device for a set period of time. When a user is diagnosed with COVID-19 the government requires them to release their list of
collected tokens. Privacy from the government, Pg. 6: TraceTogether are the decentralization of data storage and ….. user contact is recorded by each mobile device running the app and is not routinely transmitted to the government . Therefore, the tokens exchanged via Bluetooth are stored locally on the user device, not centrally (i.e., the processor . . . stores the one or more contact tracing electronic keys)).
Bell is combinable with Darnell, because both are from the same field of exchanging electronic keys. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to store contact tracing electronic keys by the user device in the memory, as taught by Bell with Darnell’s method in order to implement a system where the user device itself adds metadata to the keys before storing or using them (since keys can include metadata), while protecting user privacy. [see Bell, 4.1 privacy]
Darnell and Bell do not explicitly disclose a priority value within the one or more electronic keys, neither disclose:
wherein the processor increases the priority value of the contract tracing electronic key associated with a specific wireless device based on a number of contact tracing electronic keys received from the specific wireless device.
However, Bradley in the same field of endeavor discloses:
A priority value within the key, (Bradley, Para. [0183], claims 4-5, associating/adding a priority value to the keys).
wherein the processor increases the priority value of the contract tracing electronic key associated with a specific wireless device based on a number of contact tracing electronic keys received from the specific wireless device. (Bradley, Para. [0183], claims 4-5, dynamically updating the priority value of the keys as “the device1602-2 most frequently comes into contact” as the number of times it comes in contact with the wireless device).
Bradley is combinable with Darnell-Bell, because all are from the same field of exchanging electronic keys. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to prioritize a device as a most frequent device in contact, as taught by Bradley with Darnell-Bell’s method in order to reduce the overall amount of time/work needed for a device to be identified as a most frequent device in contact. [see Para. 0183]
As per claims 29 and 56, claims 29 and 56 encompass same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claims 29 and 56 are rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell-Bell disclose:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein: the identification comprise a device identification, an anonymous identification, or a person identification; or the one or more contact tracing electronic keys are encrypted. (Darnell, Paras. [0036]-[0038], [0099], receive an encrypted message from a manufacturing work station in communication with a vehicle computing device, the message including a unique identifier (UID) associated with the vehicle computing device (i.e., a device identification or ….); decrypt the message; generate a unique encryption key (i.e., keys are encrypted) from the UID; store the UID and the unique encryption key; generate an encrypted message that includes the unique encryption key for the vehicle computing device).
Contact tracing electronic keys is taught by Bell.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 30, claim 30 encompass same or similar scope as claim 2. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell-Bell disclose:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor adds a second identifier, a start time, an end time, a duration, a signal strength, a frequency, a severity, a device type, a transmission power, a RSSI vale, a GPS coordinate, a version number, or a sensor data, to the one or more contact tracing electronic keys. (Darnell, Paras. [0097], [0099]-[0102], Fig. 9, the virtual key includes additional pieces of information, such as, for example, a validation code, a unique identifier (i.e., first identifier), a session identifier (i.e., second identifier), and/or the like. at least one of the virtual keys further comprises an unencrypted portion (i.e., a data) that includes: a key timestamp (i.e., a stamp comprising a time, a date, a duration) created from a system clock indicating the time at which the request was received, or the time at which generation of the virtual key or a first one of multiple virtual keys began. Para. [0103], verification of additional factors, such as, for example, current date and/or time relative to reservation date and/or time, user identification, credit card information and/or authorization, validity of user's driver's license, whether a pickup location of a reservation matches the current (and/or within a predetermined range of) the user's current location (i.e., a location). Para. [0067], communicate with global positioning system (GPS) satellites 50 to determine a position of the vehicle computing device 112a. Therefore, the processor adds one or more identifiers into the virtual key such as validation code, unique identifier, and a session identifier).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 33, claim 33 encompass same or similar scope as claim 5. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell-Bell disclose:
The device as recited in claim 8, wherein the processor selects the at least one of the one or more contact tracing electronic keys for deletion based on a duplication of contact tracing electronic keys, the duplication of contact tracing electronic keys within a time period, a number of duplicate contact tracing electronic keys within the time period, an elapsed time from receiving the contact tracing electronic key, the priority value associated with the contact tracing electronic key, a first-in, first-out basis, or a selected data, flag or stamp. (Darnell, Paras. [0089], once the virtual key has been transmitted from a user's phone (portable computing device 112b) to a vehicle and the command(s) successfully executed by the vehicle, security module 374 is configured to delete the virtual key from the portable computing device so the user cannot use the same virtual key a second time (i.e., duplication of electronic keys). Virtual keys for multiple available cars are transmitted to a user's phone (portable computing device 112b), once a user has started a reservation (i.e., within the time period) for a particular one of the vehicles, security module 374 is configured to delete virtual keys for any other cars from the portable computing device so the user cannot start a reservation with a second car).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 37, claim 37 encompass same or similar scope as claim 9. Therefore, claim 37 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell-Bell disclose:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor transmits, uploads or synchronizes one or more of the contact tracing electronic keys or data stored in the memory to a server or user device simultaneously, sequentially, based on the priority value, a trigger, an event, a user-defined setting or a default setting. (Darnell, Paras. [0013], [0092], send the virtual key to the requesting user's mobile computing device (i.e., transmit one or more of the electronic keys to a user device). The vehicle computing device (112a) is configured to: in response to a triggering event, send to the server a message (e.g., an encrypted message) including one or more characteristics of the vehicle obtained from the CAN bus. Triggering events includes the passage of a predetermined period of time).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 39, claim 39 encompass same or similar scope as claim 11. Therefore, claim 39 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell discloses:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein the device or the one or more wireless devices comprise a sensor, a beacon device, a tracking device, a mobile device, a wearable device, a controller, a phone, a gateway, an access point, a repeater, a computer, a lighting device, a wall-mounted device, a ceiling-mounted device, a floor-mounted device, a plug, or a dongle. (Darnell, Paras. [0007], [0068], Interface devices 112 additionally or alternatively comprises at least one portable computing device 112b (e.g., smart phones, tablets, and/or other portable computing devices), which is configured to communicate with server 104 over a network 116 (e.g., the Internet) via wireless communication path. Para. [0073], interface device 112 provides a terminal for accessing (i.e., an access point) the computing/processing function of the server).
As per claim 46, claim 46 encompass same or similar scope as claim 19. Therefore, claim 46 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell discloses:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein: the processor receives one or more computer programs from a user device having a user interface and running a computer application; and the one or more programs, when executed by the processor, adjust a gain, adjust a transmission range, reset the device, synchronize a date or time, update a firmware, reset the memory, edit a group, edit other device configurations, edit broadcasting parameters, edit a network, perform commissioning, preform a setup process, edit user access, set light indications, or set priority configurations. (Darnell, Paras. [0074], [0082]-[0083], [0132], storage devices 202-206 are arranged in a RAID configuration (i.e., perform a setup process) for storing redundant copies of a database or databases (e.g., through synchronous or asynchronous redundancy updates). Vehicle module 350 receives data indicative of a vehicle the use of which is to be managed and/or coordinated by the RM system, create a record associated with that vehicle, and/or add and/or update information in that record as the vehicle is used. User module receives information about a user, creates a record associated with that user, and/or adds and/or updates information about that user as the user interacts with the system. Security module is configured to permit different levels of access for different users (i.e., edit user access). Some users or types of users may be system administrators with administrator-level access to system 100, such as, permission to read and edit files (i.e., edit a group). Some users may have more-limited access to system 100, such as, third-party administrator users’ permission (i.e., edit other device configurations) to read and edit only certain files, or client users with permission to only read limited files, and/or the like. The process will proceed to a step 1680 at which the vehicle computing device reboots (i.e., reset the memory) itself and restarts with the settings associated with the set vehicle type).
As per claim 47, claim 47 encompass same or similar scope as claim 21. Therefore, claim 47 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell-Bell disclose:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein: the one or more contact tracing electronic keys stored in the memory of the device are compared with one or more additional contact tracing electronic keys stored on a server or a user device; (Darnell, Paras. [0118], [0120], the encrypted portion of the virtual key (i.e., the one or more electronic keys) includes a unique identifier associated with an intended vehicle computing device and that unique identifier may be compared (i.e., compared with one or more additional electronic keys) at step 1248 to the identifier of the vehicle computing device performing step 1248 to ensure a match).
and a notification is provided after the one or more contact tracing electronic keys stored in the memory of the device match the one or more additional contact tracing electronic keys stored on the server or the user device. (Darnell, Paras. [0123]-[0124], step 1252 includes sending from the vehicle computing device to the smartphone a confirmation message (i.e., a notification message) indicating that the command(s) and any associated subcommands have been successfully executed for a “start reservation” (i.e., match)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 50, claim 50 encompass same or similar scope as claim 23. Therefore, claim 50 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 23.
Regarding claim 25, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell discloses:
The device as recited in claim 23, wherein the notification comprises an email, a text message, or an automated phone call. (Darnell, Paras. [0123]-[0124], sending from the vehicle computing device to the smartphone a confirmation message (i.e., a text message)).
As per claim 52, claim 52 encompass same or similar scope as claim 25. Therefore, claim 52 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teaches the limitations of claim 1. Darnell discloses:
The device as recited in claim 23, wherein the notification includes a link to a website, written instructions, or written information. (Darnell, Paras. [0106]-[0107], the user's smartphone receives via local point-to-point communications identification signals from the vehicle computing devices of each of multiple vehicles. When multiple vehicles are identified as available (e.g., availability is a characteristic used to filter) in steps 1012 and 1020, and are not filtered out in step 1016, each of the vehicles can be displayed to the user via smartphone for selection (i.e., written instruction). When “start reservation” and “end reservation” virtual keys are received, the smartphone displays indicia (e.g., text and/or images) that a user can select (i.e., written instruction), and receive such a selection via input to the user interface (e.g., touchscreen) of the smartphone).
As per claim 53, claim 53 encompass same or similar scope as claim 26. Therefore, claim 53 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell-Bell disclose:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor generates additional contact tracing electronic keys based on one or more configuration parameters. (Darnell, Paras. [0110]-[0107], once a specific vehicle has been selected, the process proceeds to a step 1204 at which smartphone 112a determines a desired virtual key (e.g., a “start reservation” virtual key) has previously been received and is still stored on the smartphone. If not (i.e., configuration parameters), the process proceeds to a step 1208 at which the smartphone transmits a request to the server for a virtual key. Where a reservation has not yet been started, step 1208 can include, sending information identifying the selected vehicle. Alternatively, where information has previously been sent to or received from the server that identifies a selected vehicle, step 1208 includes, sending (e.g., via command module 370) a request for a desired virtual key (e.g., a “start reservation” virtual key) corresponding to the selected vehicle (i.e., generates additional keys)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 54, claim 54 encompass same or similar scope as claim 27. Therefore, claim 54 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell discloses:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein a real time clock in the device, one of the one or more wireless devices, or both wireless devices are synchronized with a reference time. (Darnell, Paras. [0097]-[0115], a key timestamp such as a generation timestamp (e.g., indicating the time at which the request was received at step 900, or the time at which generation of the virtual key or a first one of multiple virtual keys began) is created at step 908. The generation timestamp is created from a system clock (i.e., a real time clock in the device), corresponds to a timestamp (i.e., a reference time) in the message that included the request for access).
As per claim 55, claim 55 encompass same or similar scope as claim 28. Therefore, claim 55 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 28.
Claims 8 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Darnell (US 2017/0134382) in view of “TraceSecure: Towards Privacy Preserving, Contact Tracing” by James Bell, 8th April 2020, (hereinafter “Bell”), and further in view of Bradley (US 2019/0373469) and Kim (US 2019/0199520).
Regarding claim 8, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell-Bell and Bradley do not disclose the limitations of claim 8. However, Kim in the same field of endeavor discloses:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor deletes at least one of the one or more contact tracing electronic keys stored in the memory whenever the memory has reached a defined storage limit. (Kim, Paras. [0088], the file to be erased is logically erased from the nonvolatile memory device (e.g., the encrypted data DATAw corresponding to the file to be erased becomes invalid data upon the key value associated with the unique file ID UFID being physically erased from the key table). Afterwards, in the event that a storage space of the nonvolatile memory device is insufficient (e.g., when an amount of available storage space drops below a predetermined and/or a desired threshold (i.e., the memory has reached a defined storage limit)), the controller performs garbage collection and/or a physical erase operation (e.g., sanitize (i.e., the processor deletes)) on an area of the nonvolatile memory device 1220 where the logically erased data is stored, in order to free up some additional storage space in the nonvolatile memory device).
Kim is combinable with Darnell-Bell and Bradley, because all are from the same field of storing electronic keys. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to delete a key from the memory when the memory is full, as taught by Kim with Darnell-Bell and Bradley’s method in order to free up some additional storage space in the nonvolatile memory device. [see Para. 0088]
As per claim 36, claim 36 encompass same or similar scope as claim 8. Therefore, claim 36 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 8.
Claims 10,16, 38, 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Darnell (US 2017/0134382) in view of “TraceSecure: Towards Privacy Preserving, Contact Tracing” by James Bell, 8th April 2020, (hereinafter “Bell”), and further in view of Bradley (US 2019/0373469) and Ayed (US 2013/0298208).
Regarding claim 10, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell-Bell and Bradley do not disclose the limitations of claim 10. However, Ayed in the same field of endeavor discloses:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor adjusts a signal strength or a RSSI value between the one or more wireless devices such that additional contact tracing electronic keys are not received from the one or more wireless devices or are filtered out. (Ayed, Paras. [0105], [0116]-[0120], Fig. 7, using signal loss and RSSI for alerting. On detection of signal strength (RSSI) below a threshold, the short wireless system sends a message to the host terminal indicating low signal strength or return to normal mode. This information can be used to allow/deny access, close applications, lock screen, encrypt files, issue warnings, etc. (i.e., additional electronic keys are not received from the one or more wireless devices)).
Ayed is combinable with Darnell-Bell and Bradley, because all are from the same field of using digital keys in wireless devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to consider not to exchange digital keys when the signal is low, as taught by Ayed with Darnell-Bell and Bradley’s method in order to protect BLUETOOTH devices from unauthorized data transmission. [see Para. 0130]
As per claim 38, claim 38 encompass same or similar scope as claim 10. Therefore, claim 38 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 10.
Regarding claim 16, Darnell-Bell and Bradley teach the limitations of claim 1. Darnell-Bell and Bradley do not disclose the limitations of claim 16. However, Ayed in the same field of endeavor discloses:
The device as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor adjusts a signal power of the transceiver to limit, increase or decrease a range. (Ayed, Paras. [0115]-[0117], Fig. 6, the application uses geo-fencing to determine if proximity alerting should be turned ON or OFF or to change RSSI signal threshold (i.e., adjusts a signal power of the transceiver to limit, increase or decrease a range) depending to location. It sends a message to system for authentication 10/11 to indicate turning alerting function ON or OFF or setting RSSI threshold as in step 44 of FIG. 4).
Ayed is combinable with Darnell-Bell and Bradley, because all are from the same field of using digital keys in wireless devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to adjust the RSSI signal, as taught by Ayed with Darnell-Bell and Bradley’s method in order to allow a user to use the application when he or she is at a trusted location. [see Para. 0117]
As per claim 43, claim 43 encompass same or similar scope as claim 16. Therefore, claim 43 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 16.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Park (US 2021/0127245) teaches a method, using short-range wireless communication to receive data from another device.
Sobel (US 2021/0337355) teaches contact tracing location-based and sending notifications to the user.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25-30, 33-34, 36-39, 43, 46, 48, 50, and 52-56 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. The fax phone number for the Application/Control Number: 17/470,067 Page 17 Art Unit: 2438 organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300. Application/Control Number: 17/386,076 Page 25 Art Unit: 2438 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2438
/TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438