DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having application No 18/152,177 filed on 09/19/2025 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notice
Claim 1 would be allowable if (i) claims 2 or 4 or 5 or 6 are incorporated into the independent claim 1.
Claim 7 would be allowable if (i) claims 7 or 10 are incorporated into the independent claim 7.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7 and 11 have been considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and would like to provide a further clarification regarding the interpretation of the cited references.
In response to the argument on page 13 of Applicant’s Remark, “a transceiver circuit configured to receive a packet from an electronic device and demodulate the packet according to a spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to a predetermined communication protocol, in order to obtain in a physical layer a specific data string of the packet”. In fact, Examiner interprets the “LAN access standard (including direct sequence spread spectrum DSSS); the " Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, both passive and active radio frequency identification technology, and the Home RF Shared Wireless Access Protocol”. according to Ching’s disclosure.
As stated in Ching’s – page 16, par (0131), line 10-20, LAN access standard (including direct sequence spread spectrum DSSS); the " Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, both passive and active radio frequency identification technology, and the Home RF Shared Wireless Access Protocol.
whereas the Examiner wants to provide further clarification of the cited claim limitation, whereas the Ching’s is directed to “page 13, par (1101), line 1-10, the dataform contains only "coded" information (a spread spectrum sequence code), decoding of the dataform. However, when an authorized scanning device reads the dataform, it is able to access the sensitive information (wherein specific data string of the packet).
Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments.
In response to the argument on page 14 of Applicant’s Remark, “a processor circuit configured to determine a first detection value according to the specific data string and the spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to the predetermined communication protocol”. In fact, Examiner interprets the “LAN access standard (including direct sequence spread spectrum DSSS); the " Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, both passive and active radio frequency identification technology, and the Home RF Shared Wireless Access Protocol, Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum; Long Tenn Evolution (LTE); wireless home network communication protocols; paging network protocols; magnetic induction; satellite data communication protocols; such as those operating in the WMTS bands”. according to Ching’s disclosure.
As stated in Ching’s – page 16, par (0131), line 10-20, LAN access standard (including direct sequence spread spectrum DSSS); the " Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, both passive and active radio frequency identification technology, and the Home RF Shared Wireless Access Protocol, Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum; Long Tenn Evolution (LTE); wireless home network communication protocols; paging network protocols; magnetic induction; satellite data communication protocols; such as those operating in the WMTS bands.
whereas the Examiner wants to provide further clarification of the cited claim limitation, whereas the Ching’s is directed to “page 16, par (0133), line 1-20, the transaction encoding and decoding system includes a networked interface to a remote third-party server accessible to both the vendor and purchaser involved in a transaction, the vendor transmits the transaction data to the server via a standard network connection such as that provided by an Internet service provider (ISP) using, the well-known TCP/IP or FTP protocols.
In response to the argument on page 15 of Applicant’s Remark, “determine a second detection value according to the specific data string and a spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to a predetermined vendor”. In fact, Examiner interprets the “Data Transfer Device" (DTD) refers to a portable or semi-portable device incorporating, at a minimum, the ability to store or retain data in an electronic format, based local area network ("LAN") connections based direct sequence spread spectrum variants, devices designed to exchange data via the "Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, devices designed to exchange data via the Wireless devices”. according to Ching’s disclosure.
As stated in Ching’s – page 5-6, par (0057), line 1-10, the "Data Transfer Device" (DTD) refers to a portable or semi-portable device incorporating, at a minimum, the ability to store or retain data in an electronic format, based local area network ("LAN") connections based direct sequence spread spectrum variants, devices designed to exchange data via the "Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, devices designed to exchange data via the Wireless devices.
whereas the Examiner wants to provide further clarification of the cited claim limitation, whereas the Ching’s is directed to “page 12, par (0106), line 1-20, for any vendor-purchaser transaction, only transaction information corresponding to one discrete transaction is encoded into each transaction dataset. The microprocessor then executes software incorporating dataform encoding algorithms and encodes the transaction dataset into a dataform pattern.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments.
In response to the argument on page 17 of Applicant’s Remark, “determine whether a vendor of the electronic device is the predetermined vendor according to the first detection value and the second detection value, wherein if the processor circuit determines that the vendor of the electronic device is the predetermined vendor”. In fact, Examiner interprets the “the determination of an alert is raised based on baselined data, one vendor compare the metric value to a weighted average of all historical metric data and if the value is greater than the average value by a predetermined value of standard deviations, then the alert is raised”. according to Balaiah’s disclosure.
As stated in Balaiah’s – page 17, par (0151), line 1-10, the determination of an alert is raised based on baselined data, one vendor compare the metric value to a weighted average of all historical metric data and if the value is greater than the average value by a predetermined value of standard deviations, then the alert is raised.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments.
In response to the argument on page 18 of Applicant’s Remark, “determine whether a vendor of the electronic device is the predetermined vendor according to the first detection value and the second detection value, wherein if the processor circuit determines that the vendor of the electronic device is the predetermined vendor”. In fact, Examiner interprets the “the determination of an alert is raised based on baselined data, one vendor compare the metric value to a weighted average of all historical metric data and if the value is greater than the average value by a predetermined value of standard deviations, then the alert is raised”. according to Balaiah’s disclosure.
As stated in Balaiah’s – page 18, par (0151), line 1-10, the determination of an alert is raised based on baselined data, one vendor compare the metric value to a weighted average of all historical metric data and if the value is greater than the average value by a predetermined value of standard deviations, then the alert is raised.
whereas the Examiner wants to provide further clarification of the cited claim limitation, whereas the Ching’s is directed to “page 6, par (0056), line 1-20, the content item is determined not to be classified by the threat data, then the processing node manager cause one or more of the data inspection engines to perform the threat detection processes to classify the content item according to a threat classification. Once the content item is classified, the processing node manager generates a threat data update that includes data indicating the threat classification for the content item from the threat detection process and transmits the threat data update to an authority node.
In response to the argument on page 19 of Applicant’s Remark, “the processor circuit is further configured to perform a predetermined communication mode of the predetermined communication protocol to connect to the electronic device”. In fact, Examiner interprets the “the determination of an alert is raised based on baselined data, one vendor compare the metric value to a weighted average of all historical metric data and if the value is greater than the average value by a predetermined value of standard deviations, then the alert is raised”. according to Balaiah’s disclosure.
As stated in Balaiah’s – page 4, par (0044), line 1-10, the ISP nodes redirect subject traffic to the processing nodes in a transparent proxy mode. Protected systems, such as the enterprise use a multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) class of service for indicating the subject traffic that is to be redirected, at the within the enterprise, the access agent configured to perform MPLS labeling.
whereas the Examiner wants to provide further clarification of the cited claim limitation, whereas the Ching’s is directed to “page 17, par (0150), line 1-10, The alert criteria can include percentages, durations, number of times in a row that the condition occurs, etc. An operator can indicate whether the criteria that occurs is less than ( <), greater than, equal to, less than or equal to (s), greater than or equal to), an error message, and the like.
Thus, Balaiah’s and Ching’s disclosure still covers the limitations of claim1-17. Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 would be allowable. The limitation “if both of the vendor of the first wireless communication device and the vendor of the second wireless communication device are the predetermined vendor, performing, by the second wireless communication device, a specific communication mode of the predetermined vendor to connect to the first wireless communication device; and if at least one of the vendor of the first wireless communication device and the vendor of the second wireless communication device is not the predetermined vendor, performing, by the second wireless communication device, a predetermined communication mode of the predetermined communication protocol to connect to the first wireless communication device”. recited on claim 11 cannot be found in combination with other limitations.
Claim 1 would be allowable if (i) claims 2 or 4 or 5 or 6 are incorporated into the independent claim 1. Claim 7 would be allowable if (i) claim 8 is incorporated into the independent claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Balaiah et al. (US 20200274782, Aug. 27, 2020) in view of Ching (U.S 20180314841, Nov. 1, 2028).
Regarding Claim 1, Balaiah discloses determine whether a vendor of the electronic device is the predetermined vendor according to the first detection value and the second detection value, wherein if the processor circuit determines that the vendor of the electronic device is the predetermined vendor (page 17, par (0151), line 1-10, the determination of an alert is raised based on baselined data, one vendor compare the metric value to a weighted average of all historical metric data and if the value is greater than the average value by a predetermined value of standard deviations, then the alert is raised),
the processor circuit is further configured to perform a specific communication mode of the predetermined vendor to connect to the electronic device, and if the processor circuit determines that the vendor of the electronic device is not the predetermined vendor (page 17, par (0151), line 1-10, the determination of an alert is raised based on baselined data, one vendor compare the metric value to a weighted average of all historical metric data and if the value is greater than the average value by a predetermined value of standard deviations, then the alert is raised, the action taken when the alert is triggered can also be configured, this include selecting a throttling value for a number of times the event needs to occur in a row, how many devices are impacted based on either a number or percentage of devices), the processor circuit is further configured to perform a predetermined communication mode of the predetermined communication protocol to connect to the electronic device (page 4, par (0044), line 1-10, the ISP nodes redirect subject traffic to the processing nodes in a transparent proxy mode. Protected systems, such as the enterprise use a multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) class of service for indicating the subject traffic that is to be redirected, at the within the enterprise, the access agent configured to perform MPLS labeling).
Balaiah discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, except a wireless communication device, comprising a transceiver circuit configured to receive a packet from an electronic device and demodulate the packet according to a spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to a predetermined communication protocol, in order to obtain in a physical layer a specific data string of the packet; and a processor circuit configured to determine a first detection value according to the specific data string and the spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to the predetermined communication protocol, determine a second detection value according to the specific data string and a spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to a predetermined vendor.
Ching is the same field of invention teaches a wireless communication device, comprising a transceiver circuit configured to receive a packet from an electronic device and demodulate the packet according to a spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to a predetermined communication protocol, in order to obtain in a physical layer a specific data string of the packet (page 16, par (0131), line 10-20, LAN access standard (including direct sequence spread spectrum DSSS); the " Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, both passive and active radio frequency identification technology, and the Home RF Shared Wireless Access Protocol);
and a processor circuit configured to determine a first detection value according to the specific data string and the spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to the predetermined communication protocol(page 16, par (0131), line 10-20, LAN access standard (including direct sequence spread spectrum DSSS); the " Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, both passive and active radio frequency identification technology, and the Home RF Shared Wireless Access Protocol, Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum; Long Tenn Evolution (LTE); wireless home network communication protocols; paging network protocols; magnetic induction; satellite data communication protocols; such as those operating in the WMTS bands),
determine a second detection value according to the specific data string and a spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to a predetermined vendor(page 5-6, par (0057), line 1-10, the "Data Transfer Device" (DTD) refers to a portable or semi-portable device incorporating, at a minimum, the ability to store or retain data in an electronic format, based local area network ("LAN") connections based direct sequence spread spectrum variants, devices designed to exchange data via the "Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, devices designed to exchange data via the Wireless devices).
Balaiah and Ching analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of access to a service device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the determine a second detection value according to the specific data string and a spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to a predetermined vendor teaching of Balaiah to include the Data Transfer Device refers to a portable or semi-portable device incorporating, at a minimum, the ability to store or retain data in an electronic format teaching of Ching because it is providing Vendors with a number of significant advantages that include but are not limited to the capability to use semi-automated and automated data entry methods to improve the accuracy and speed of data capture, to facilitate faster transfer of data for internal and external use, to eliminate duplicative entry of transaction related data and to facilitate entry of data into non-transaction related systems.
Regarding Claim 7, Balaiah discloses if the electronic device determines that the first vendor is the predetermined vendor(page 17, par (0151), line 1-10, the determination of an alert is raised based on baselined data, one vendor compare the metric value to a weighted average of all historical metric data and if the value is greater than the average value by a predetermined value of standard deviations, then the alert is raised), the processor circuit is further configured to perform a specific communication mode of the predetermined vendor to connect to the electronic device, and if the electronic device determines that the first vendor is not the predetermined vendor(page 17, par (0151), line 1-10, the determination of an alert is raised based on baselined data, one vendor compare the metric value to a weighted average of all historical metric data and if the value is greater than the average value by a predetermined value of standard deviations, then the alert is raised, the action taken when the alert is triggered can also be configured, this include selecting a throttling value for a number of times the event needs to occur in a row, how many devices are impacted based on either a number or percentage of devices), the processor circuit is further configured to perform a predetermined communication mode of a predetermined communication protocol to connect to the electronic device(page 4, par (0044), line 1-10, the ISP nodes redirect subject traffic to the processing nodes in a transparent proxy mode. Protected systems, such as the enterprise use a multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) class of service for indicating the subject traffic that is to be redirected, at the within the enterprise, the access agent configured to perform MPLS labeling).
Balaiah discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, except a wireless communication device, comprising a processor circuit; and a transceiver circuit configured to determine whether a string to be transmitted in a physical layer is a specific data string of a packet, modulate the string according to a spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to a first vendor when the string is the specific data string, and transmit the packet to an electronic device such that the electronic device determines whether the first vendor is a predetermined vendor.
Ching is the same field of invention teaches a wireless communication device, comprising a processor circuit; and a transceiver circuit configured to determine whether a string to be transmitted in a physical layer is a specific data string of a packet(page 16, par (0131), line 10-20, LAN access standard (including direct sequence spread spectrum DSSS); the " Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, both passive and active radio frequency identification technology, and the Home RF Shared Wireless Access Protocol), modulate the string according to a spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to a first vendor when the string is the specific data string(page 16, par (0131), line 10-20, LAN access standard (including direct sequence spread spectrum DSSS); the " Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, both passive and active radio frequency identification technology, and the Home RF Shared Wireless Access Protocol, Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum; Long Tenn Evolution (LTE); wireless home network communication protocols; paging network protocols; magnetic induction; satellite data communication protocols; such as those operating in the WMTS bands), and transmit the packet to an electronic device such that the electronic device determines whether the first vendor is a predetermined vendor(page 5-6, par (0057), line 1-10, the "Data Transfer Device" (DTD) refers to a portable or semi-portable device incorporating, at a minimum, the ability to store or retain data in an electronic format, based local area network ("LAN") connections based direct sequence spread spectrum variants, devices designed to exchange data via the "Bluetooth" 2.45 GHz frequency band based wireless communication specification, devices designed to exchange data via the Wireless devices).
Balaiah and Ching analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of access to a service device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the determine a second detection value according to the specific data string and a spread spectrum sequence code corresponding to a predetermined vendor teaching of Balaiah to include the Data Transfer Device refers to a portable or semi-portable device incorporating, at a minimum, the ability to store or retain data in an electronic format teaching of Ching because it is providing Vendors with a number of significant advantages that include but are not limited to the capability to use semi-automated and automated data entry methods to improve the accuracy and speed of data capture, to facilitate faster transfer of data for internal and external use, to eliminate duplicative entry of transaction related data and to facilitate entry of data into non-transaction related systems.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IQBAL ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-3943. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Thu 8.a.m to 6.p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Q Ngo can be reached on 57-272-3139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IQBAL ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464