DETAILED ACTION
This first non-final action is in response to applicants’ filing on 12/16/2022. Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/16/2022 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a data processing device” in Claim 17.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 17-23 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 17 recites the limitation "the IO device" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites a “system comprising: an app installed on a data processing device…”, but it is unclear and indefinite as to whether “a multimedia system” in line 3 and “the IO device” in line 7 are intended to be a part of Claim 17’s system. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 17’s system could only comprise “an app installed on a data processing device” while the “multimedia system” and “IO device” are extrinsic to the claimed invention. For purposes of examination, the language “wherein the multimedia system is to transmit or has previously transmitted a second key of a second key pair to the service; if the service has validated the first key and the second key, the multimedia system and/or the IO device to use at least one of the first key and the second key to generate a session key; and wherein the IO device is paired with the multimedia system using the session key” is considered outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-23 inherit the statutory indefiniteness of Claim 17 from which they depend and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 17’s limitation “a data processing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of the data processing device to provide “a digital representation” and to provide “a communication channel”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicants may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent Claim 9 recites “A machine-readable medium having program code stored thereon…”, but applicants’ Specification has not exclusively limited the definition of “machine-readable medium” to purely statutory embodiments. Pending claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 3 19 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a machine-readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of machine-readable medium, particularly when the specification is silent (See MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) “A transitory, propagating signal … is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter”). Because the full scope of Claim 9 as properly read in light of the disclosure encompasses non-statutory subject matter (i.e., because “machine-readable medium” includes propagating signals such as wireless media, a non-statutory signal, carrier wave, etc.), Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for reciting non-statutory subject matter.
As to Claims 10-16 which depend upon the machine-readable medium of Claim 9, they do not recite nor impart any further limitations that would bring them in compliance under 35 U.S.C. §101 as statutory subject matter.
The Examiner suggests that a claim drawn to a machine-readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentqv Galleiy, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ARNBERG et al. (US 20200112610 A1, hereinafter Arnberg).
As to Claim 17:
Arnberg discloses a system (e.g. Arnberg “an Internet of Things (IoT) platform which may be utilized by developers to design and build new IoT devices and applications” [0045]; [0046]) comprising:
an app installed on a data processing device to cause an optical code to be read from a multimedia system and to provide a digital representation of at least a portion of the code to a service for validation (e.g. Arnberg “a user of mobile device 135 opens the IoT app (or browser-executable code) which provides a camera interface for using the camera of the mobile device 135 to capture the association IDs 2812A-B of one or more IoT devices 101-102… the association IDs 2812A-B may be encoded as QR codes, barcodes, or any other form of optical coding displayed on the IoT devices 101-102… the association ID 2812 may be transmitted to a device provisioning module 2850 on the IoT service 120 which performs a lookup in a device database 2851 containing a link between each association ID and a device ID. The device provisioning module 2850 uses the association ID 2812 to identify the device ID 2811” [0279]; “each new IoT device 101-105 is assigned a unique code which is communicated to the IoT hub 110 during the pairing process. For example, the unique code may be embedded in a barcode on the IoT device and may be read by the barcode reader 106 or may be communicated over the local communication channel 130” [0066]; “the IoT hub 110 may verify the unique ID by querying a local database (not shown), performing a hash to verify that the code is acceptable, and/or communicating with the IoT service 120, user device 135 and/or Website 130 to validate the ID code. Once validated, in one embodiment, the IoT hub 110 pairs the IoT device 101” [0067]; audiovisual equipment [0072]; audiovisual equipment 432 (e.g., a television, A/V receiver, cable/satellite receiver, AppleTV [0075]);
the data processing device to provide a communication channel between the IO device and the service (e.g. Arnberg “the IoT hub 110 manages a continuous bi-directional stream of data between the IoT devices 101-105 and the IoT service 120” [0069]; “and then uses the device ID to provision the new IoT device 101 in the system and establish a secure connection with the IoT service 120” [0279]) and to transmit a first key of a first key pair associated with the IO device to the service (e.g. Arnberg “a unique public/private key pair is associated with each IoT device 101-102, each IoT hub 110 and the IoT service 120… when a new IoT device 101 is set up, it's public key is provided to both the IoT hub 110 and the IoT service 120” [0108]);
wherein the multimedia system is to transmit or has previously transmitted a second key of a second key pair to the service; if the service has validated the first key and the second key, the multimedia system and/or the IO device to use at least one of the first key and the second key to generate a session key; and wherein the IO device is paired with the multimedia system using the session key (per the aforementioned 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the multimedia system, IO device, and wherein clauses are considered extraneous to the claimed system which only comprises an app installed on a data processing device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
None of the prior art of record teaches individually or in combination at least the following limitations of independent Claim 1:
“wherein the multimedia system is to transmit or has previously transmitted a second key of a second key pair to the service; if the service has validated the first key and the second key, using at least one of the first key and the second key to generate a session key; and wherein the IO device is paired with the multimedia system using the session key”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure.
Hito et al. (US 20110219427 A1) discloses simplifying an authentication process from the viewpoint of a user while providing improved security to the many users currently employing no or weak security techniques. In logging into a web site hosted by a web server, a session begins by a user connecting and logging in with a device, such as a personal computer. Rather than a user name and password approach which is presently typical, the personal computer communicates with another user device, such as a smart phone. In one approach, an encoded acoustic signal is employed for this communication. The smart phone securely communicates with an authentication server which informs the web server whether the user has been authenticated or not.
Gnanasekaran (US 20150371026 A1) discloses implementing authentication via Bluetooth devices. In particular, a user's Bluetooth device, such as a smart phone, may be registered to be used for automatic authentication for an online user account. When the user is attempting to log onto the online user account at a user device, such as a laptop, the user device may detect that the user's Bluetooth device is in proximity to the user device and the user may be logged into the online user account at the user device automatically. Thus, the user may be logged into the online user account seamlessly without requiring the user to input credentials, such as user name and/or password.
Zakaria et al. (US 9793937 B2) discloses radios to receive a plurality of wireless signals within a defined spectrum; an energy detection and filtering module to filter received wireless signals based on a detected energy level of the received wireless signals and in accordance with a set of energy-based filtering parameters, the energy detection and filtering module to output energy-filtered wireless signals; and a signal characteristic analysis and filtering module to analyze and filter the energy-filtered wireless signals based on characteristics of the received wireless signals in accordance with a set of signal analysis filtering parameters to output energy-and-characteristic filtered wireless signals.
Britt et al. (US 10470063 B2) discloses a plurality of channel filters, each channel filter to remove all but a specified portion of a wireless network spectrum; a plurality of radios each configured to receive one of the specified portions of the wireless network spectrum associated with one of the channels; wireless device identification logic to analyze the digital data stream for each channel to identify wireless devices and to packetize the transmissions using the identity of the sender and/or recipient; a plurality of wireless networking stacks each associated with one of the wireless devices identified by the wireless device identification logic; stack forwarding logic to receive packets from the wireless device identification logic and to forward the packets to wireless networking; and a communication feature extraction module to extract a specified set of features from the digital data stream generated by the radios.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenneth W Chang whose telephone number is (571)270-7530. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. 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.
/KENNETH W CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
PNG
media_image1.png
35
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
12.19.2024
Prosecution Insights