DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 11/12/2025.
Status of claims in the instant application:
Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 7 and 17 have been canceled.
1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page [6] of the remarks filed on 11/12/2025 with respect to interpretation of claims under 35 USC 112(f), have been fully considered in view of claim amendments and they are persuasive. Therefore, the claims are no longer been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claims have been amended to further clarify the nonce (place holder) term “an information interaction platform” to include “a processor and a transceiver”. The terms “processor and transceiver” are considered known hardware elements in the art.
Applicant's arguments, see page [7] of the remarks filed on 11/12/2025 with respect to rejections of claims under non-statutory double patenting, have been fully considered in view of claim amendments and they are persuasive. Therefore, the claim rejections are withdrawn. Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer, and it has been approved.
Applicant's arguments, see page [7-9] of the remarks filed on 11/12/2025 with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC 101 (as an abstract idea), have been fully considered in view of claim amendments, but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the claim rejections are maintained in this office action.
Applicant argues, regarding amended claim 1, that, “Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention of the present application proposes a system for information interaction including an information interaction platform, where at least two operations are involved, including: the processor of the information interaction platform authorizing a second terminal according to location information of a vehicle; and the processor of the information interaction platform further determining whether the second terminal is one of terminals in a blacklist according to identifier information of the second terminal. These operations performed by the transceiver of the information interaction platform are clearly precluding the claimed invention from being performed in the human mind.”
Examiner again asserts that both of the limitations that the Applicant is arguing about can be performed simply in human mind with the help of pencil and paper. The claimed limitations just compare location and identifier information.
Applicant further argues that, “it shall be noted that according to the system for information interaction proposed by independent claim I amended herein, the identifier information of the second terminal is used by the information interaction platform, especially by the processor thereof, for the purpose of determining whether the second terminal is one of those in the blacklist. In this case, not only a malicious terminal can be prevented from accessing the first terminal and the” associated vehicle and thereby from harassing the vehicle's owner, but also the permitted user can be identified successfully.
Accordingly, the above additional limitations in claim 1 recite specific machine operations performed by the processor of the information interaction platform, where the processor first authorizes the second terminal according to location information of the vehicle, and then the processor determines further whether the second terminal is one of terminals in a blacklist according to identifier information of the second terminal. This helps to not only authorize the second terminal, but also determine whether the second terminal is in the blacklist, such that proper subsequent operations can be selected. That is, the above additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Examiner further notes that Applicant’s claimed invention does not recite any limitations to “preventing a malicious terminal from accessing the first terminal”, or “preventing from harassing the vehicle's owner” or “identifying a user”.
Examiner asserts that, there is no limitation in the claimed invention that performs any action as a result of successful location verification or as a determination that a terminal is in a certain list (i.e. blacklist). Therefore, there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention does not contain any other limitations that can be considered significantly more than an abstract idea. The limitations in the dependent claims are to collect data (i.e. sending/receiving or communicating data). There is no limitation in the claimed invention reciting a “subsequent operation” to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments, see page [10-11] of the remarks filed on 11/12/2025 with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC 103, have been fully considered in view of claim amendments, but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the claim rejections are maintained in this office action.
Applicant states, see page [10-11] of the remarks:
“Regarding claim 7 ...TIANTIAN further discloses, "wherein the information interaction platform is further configured to determine whether the second terminal is one of terminals in a blacklist according to identifier information of the second terminal (TIANTIAN, Para [0054]: ... after the contact system is a two-dimensional code owner reservation options: the two-dimension code of user just contacts, if two-dimensional code group is not satisfied, it can choose to only receive short message or telephone or blacklist does not accept the communication initiated by the two-dimensional code user...) ".
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office, for at least the following reasons.
It shall be noted first that the exact description in paragraph (0054] of TIANTIAN is as follows (with emphasis added):
[0054] Optionally, after the contact system is a two-dimensional code owner reservation options: the two-dimension code of user just contacts, if two-dimensional code group is not satisfied, it can choose to only receive short message or telephone or blacklist does not accept the communication initiated by the two-dimensional code user.”
However, throughout the entire disclosure of TIANTIAN, nothing is ever mentioned about another operation like determining whether the second terminal is one of terminals in the blacklist, especially based on "identifier information of the second terminal", as in independent claim 1 amended herein.
Applicant respectfully notes that there are at least two differences between the above operation of determining in independent claim 1 amended herein and the operation of adding described in TIANTIAN, as below:
(1) the first difference is the operation of "determining whether the second terminal is in the blacklist" in independent claim 1 amended herein VERSUS the operation of "adding the user to the blacklist" in TIANTIAN, at least because the determining operation of claim 1 has two determination results involved (one is the Yes situation directed to the second terminal in the blacklist, and the other is the No situation directed to the second terminal not in the blacklist), but the adding operation of TIANTIAN is only directed to the Yes situation (that is, the user is determined in the blacklist); and
(2) the second difference is the parameter - identifier information of the second terminal, on which the determining operation of independent claim 1 amended herein is based, VERSUS the QR code user being not satisfied with the contacted QR code user, on which the adding operation of TIANTIAN is based, at least because the general wording "not satisfied" in TIANTIAN only provides a rather broad illustration about the fact that the QR code user himself is not the right person permitted as the contacted QR code user and thus shall be added into the blacklist, but nothing is ever involved in TIANTIAN about the specific "identifier information" of the second terminal used for determining whether the second terminal is in the blacklist, as in independent claim 1 amended herein.
For at least the above reasoning, Applicant respectfully submits that TIANTIAN does not disclose the limitation of “determine, by the processor whether the second terminal is one of terminals in a blacklist according to identifier information of the second terminal” in independent claim 1 amended herein.”
In response, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of TIANTIAN prior art that it does not disclose the terminal identifier in determining that the terminal is in the blacklist.
Examiner clarifies that, as cited in previous office action, Para [0054] of TIANTIAN discloses that a user uses a terminal using a two-dimensional code (QR code) via a terminal, and if the two-dimensional code (the QR code) is not satisfied the user/terminal is put in a blacklist.
Examiner further directs Applicant to at-least the following from TIANTIAN prior art that clarifies how the two-dimensional (QR Code) connects the user and the terminal.
TIANTIAN abstract discloses, “The invention claims an indirect communication capable of protecting privacy method, comprising: the first terminal sends the user information to the server, the user information comprises mobile phone number and other contact information; the first terminal receives the server sending the user code, the user code is bound with the mobile phone number or other contact ways, the first terminal sends the user code to the display device or printing to display material, the display device or display material the user code”
TIANTIAN Para [0020] discloses, “The positive effect of the invention is (in which the user code is two-dimensional code, the first terminal is a two-dimensional code owner terminal, the second terminal is a two-dimensional code held by the user terminal as an example)”.
As disclosed by TIANTIAN, the mobile number (i.e. terminal identifier) is bound to the user code that is used to put the user/terminal in the blacklist.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “authorize, by the processor, a second terminal according to location information of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is in a binding relationship with information relevant to a first terminal”; “determine, by the processor, whether the second terminal is one of terminals in a blacklist according to identifier information of the second terminal”
The authorization step of the limitation based on location verification can be considered a mental step as comparing two locations, and if they match then terminal is authorized.
Similarly, the determination of terminal based on identifier is also considered comparing two identifiers that can be performed in human mind as a mental step, with the help of pencil and paper.
Furthermore, as recited the relationship of the vehicle with a different (first) terminal has no impact/effect on the authorization, as recited in the claim. The claim limitation falls under one of the three (3) abstract idea groups, i.e. “Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind 14 (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”.
Also, the last remaining limitation of claim 1, “send content presentation information to the second terminal according to authorization results”, can be considered ordinary data sending/receiving activity, and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (mpep 2106.05(g)).
Therefore claim 1 as a whole is considered and abstract idea without significantly more and without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, and hence rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The limitations of claims 2-6, and 8-10 can be considered as simply data acquisition/communication, i.e. receiving/sending data.
Therefore claims 2-6, and 8-10 are also rejected similarly as claim .1
Claims 11-16 and 18-20 are also rejected for reasons similar to claims 1-10.
Appropriate corrections required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 20140136652 A1 to Narayanaswami et al. (hereinafter “Narayanaswami”) in view of CN103647634 TIANTIAN et al. – provided by Applicant in IDS of the Parent Application 16441556 (hereinafter “TIANTIAN”).
Regarding Claim 1. Narayanaswami discloses A system for information interaction (Narayanaswami), comprising: an information interaction platform comprising a processor and a transceiver (Narayanaswami, FIG. 2, FIG. 4, Para [0006]: … According to one illustrative embodiment, a data processing system for verifying a location of a tag is provided …), and configured to:
authorize, by the processor, a second terminal according to location information of a vehicle (Narayanaswami, Abstract, FIG. 5A-B, Para [0006, 0028-0031, 0048]: … Verifying a location of a tag is provided. A request for content associated with the tag is received from a client device that scanned the tag. It is determined whether location data was received from the client device. In response to determining that the location data was received from the client device, it is determined whether a current location of the tag is a predefined location for the tag based on the location data received from the client device … Also, the machine-readable tag may be affixed to or located near any type of object. An object may be, for example, a building, a landmark, a tourist attraction, a park, an area defined by a geometric shape, such as a square or a polygon, a posted sign, an electronic device, a painting, an article of merchandise, or a vehicle … a user of client 110 may utilize tag reader unit 116 to scan a quick response code tag attached to a sign located near a statue in a museum to obtain information regarding the statue. After scanning the quick response code tag, client 110 will send a request for the content associated with the quick response code tag (i.e., the information regarding the statue) to server 104 via network 102. In addition, client 110 may also send location data corresponding to a current location of client 110 to server 104. The location data may be, for example, global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of client 110 at the time when the quick response code tag was scanned by client 110 … Subsequent to receiving the location data corresponding to the current location of client 110, server 104 may verify that the location of the quick response code tag is a predefined location for the quick response tag. A predefined location for a tag is a site where the tag should be positioned based on a stored specification corresponding to the tag. Server 104 may verify that the location of the quick response code tag is a predefined location for the quick response tag by comparing a stored predefined location for the quick response tag with the global positioning system coordinates of client 110 at the time when the quick response code tag was scanned by client 110 … Instructions for the operating system, applications, and/or programs may be located in storage devices 220, which are in communication with processor unit 204 through communications fabric 202. In this illustrative example, the instructions are in a functional form on persistent storage 208. These instructions may be loaded into memory 206 for running by processor unit 204. The processes of the different embodiments may be performed by processor unit 204 using computer implemented instructions, which may be located in a memory, such as memory 206 …), [wherein the vehicle is in a binding relationship with information relevant to a first terminal]; and
However, Narayanaswami does not explicitly teach, but TIANTIAN from same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
“wherein the vehicle is in a binding relationship with information relevant to a first terminal (TIANTIAN, Description Page 5: … S1. The QR code owner accesses the background server through the user terminal, and transmits the content that he wants to display and the operation options for selection to the background server. The background server stores the information and operation options, and automatically returns a QR code to the QR code owner user Terminal, the QR code is mapped to the information and options left by the user … S2. If the operation left by the owner of the QR code includes contacting the left contact information, such as a phone number, by telephone, SMS, voice, etc., the background service system will verify the contact information through the reserved operation … S3. The server saves the QR code owner information on the server, confirms the operation options to be provided, and returns a QR code pointing to the above content to the QR code owner…)”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of TIANTIAN into the teachings of Narayanaswami, because it discloses that, “The method claimed by the invention can through the background server establishing the connection between two-dimensional code owner and a two-dimensional code user, which can ensure both personal information privacy (TIANTIAN, Abstract)”.
Narayanaswami further discloses:
“send, by the transceiver, content presentation information to the second terminal according to authorization results (Narayanaswami, Abstract, FIG. 5A-B, Para [0032, 0046-0048]: … In response to verifying that the current location of the quick response code tag is the predefined location for the quick response code tag, server 104 may send the requested content associated with the quick response code tag to client 110 … Communications unit 214, in this example, provides for communication with other data processing systems or devices. Communications unit 214 may provide communications through the use of either or both physical and wireless communications links. The physical communications link may utilize, for example, a wire, cable, universal serial bus, or any other physical technology to establish a physical communications link for data processing system 200. The wireless communications link may utilize, for example, shortwave, high frequency, ultra high frequency, microwave, wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi), bluetooth technology, global system for mobile communications (GSM), code division multiple access (CDMA), second-generation (2G), third-generation (3G), fourth-generation (4G), or any other wireless communication technology or standard to establish a wireless communications link for data processing system 200 …)”; and
TIANTIAN further discloses:
“determine, by the processor, whether the second terminal is one of terminals in a blacklist according to identifier information of the second terminal (TIANTIAN, Para [0054]: … after the contact system is a two-dimensional code owner reservation options: the two-dimension code of user just contacts, if two-dimensional code group is not satisfied, it can choose to only receive short message or telephone or blacklist does not accept the communication initiated by the two-dimensional code user …)”.
The motivation to further combine TIANTIAN remains same as before.
Regarding Claim 2. The combination of Narayanaswami-TIANTIAN discloses the system for information interaction according to claim 1, TIANTIAN further discloses, “wherein the content presentation information comprises a virtual phone number of the first terminal (TIANTIAN, Para [0066]: … the virtual communication system such as Skype, two-dimensional code owner can edit it to short message or phone number. t such as certain user leaving one two-dimensional code is two-dimensional code user dialling to the scanning the two-dimensional code, two-dimensional code master user terminal display (888) so that two-dimensional code owner identification two-dimension code user scanning with which two-dimensional code …).”
The motivation to further combine TIANTIAN remains same as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3. The combination of Narayanaswami-TIANTIAN discloses the system for information interaction according to claim 2, TIANTIAN further discloses, “wherein the virtual phone number is assigned by a mobile communication operator for the first terminal from a pool of virtual phone numbers (TIANTIAN, Para [0065, 0069]: … For example, going to market network can the system application using some fixing number is the user service, specifically is as follows: collecting net is the system of enterprise user, applying one fixing number or fixed contact way, A user is collecting network user A leaving selling information of the bicycle, and as contact method using the system, leaving the telephone number A of the system, and generating a dialing operation of a mobile phone, a user converts the two-dimensional code in the network. B user from centralized network scanning A user of two-dimensional code, reading the dial phone option, B chooses to dial telephone contact A… S2. If the two-dimensional code master operation comprises contact way through telephone, short message, voice and so on contact, such as telephone number, the background service system to check through the reserved operation to the contact mode. such as operation option comprises communication or short message of some two-dimensional code owner left, background server will be the number of sending short message or dial phone to confirm …).”
The motivation to further combine TIANTIAN remains same as in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4. The combination of Narayanaswami-TIANTIAN discloses the system for information interaction according to claim 2, TIANTIAN further discloses, “wherein the virtual phone number is a disposable virtual phone number (TIANTIAN, Para [0066]: … 10, the virtual communication system such as Skype, two-dimensional code owner can edit it to short message or phone number. t such as certain user leaving one two-dimensional code is two-dimensional code user dialling to the scanning the two-dimensional code …).”
The motivation to further combine TIANTIAN remains same as in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 5. The combination of Narayanaswami-TIANTIAN discloses the system for information interaction according to claim 2, TIANTIAN further discloses, “wherein the virtual phone number is associated with a main phone number of the first terminal (TIANTIAN, Para [0069]: … If the two-dimensional code master operation comprises contact way through telephone, short message, voice and so on contact, such as telephone number, the background service system to check through the reserved operation to the contact mode. such as operation option comprises communication or short message of some two-dimensional code owner left, background server will be the number of sending short message or dial phone to confirm. …).”
The motivation to further combine TIANTIAN remains same as in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 6. The combination of Narayanaswami-TIANTIAN discloses the system for information interaction according to claim 1, Narayanaswami further discloses, “wherein the location information is input by the second terminal (Narayanaswami, Para [0030]: … After scanning the quick response code tag, client 110 will send a request for the content associated with the quick response code tag (i.e., the information regarding the statue) to server 104 via network 102. In addition, client 110 may also send location data corresponding to a current location of client 110 to server 104 …) or acquired from a vehicle-mounted GPS module.”
Regarding Claim 8. The combination of Narayanaswami-TIANTIAN discloses the system for information interaction according to claim 1, Narayanaswami further discloses, “further comprising:
an electronic tag, configured to present a two-dimensional code so that the second terminal scans the two-dimensional code for inputting information (Narayanaswami, FIG. 4, Para [0024-0027, 0036, 0066-0067]: … In the depicted example, server 104 and server 106 connect to network 102, along with storage unit 108. Server 104 and server 106 may be, for example, server computers with high speed connections to network 102. In addition, server 104 and/or server 106 may provide services for authenticating and verifying a location of a machine-readable tag scanned by a mobile client device connected to network 102 … The machine-readable tag may be, for example, a barcode tag, a quick response code tag, a radio frequency identification tag, a near field communication tag, and the like … With reference now to FIG. 4, a diagram illustrating examples of client device screen views is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Client device screen views 400 may be displayed within a display device, such as display 218 in FIG. 2, of a client device, such as client 110 in FIG. 1. Client device screen views 400 includes tag scanning view 402, manual tag location verification view 404, and automatic tag location verification view 406 … Tag scanning view 402 illustrates when a user of the client device scans tag 408. Tag 408 is a machine-readable tag that includes embedded watermark 410 and digital signature 412. Embedded watermark 410 may include information, such as an identification number of tag 408 and data regarding a predefined location for tag 408 …).”
Regarding Claim 9. The combination of Narayanaswami-TIANTIAN discloses the system for information interaction according to claim 8, Narayanaswami further discloses, “wherein the information input by the second terminal comprises the location information of the vehicle (Narayanaswami, FIG. 4, Para [0066-0067]: … Tag scanning view 402 illustrates when a user of the client device scans tag 408. Tag 408 is a machine-readable tag that includes embedded watermark 410 and digital signature 412. Embedded watermark 410 may include information, such as an identification number of tag 408 and data regarding a predefined location for tag 408 …) or identifier information of the second terminal.
Regarding Claim 11. This claim contains all the same or similarly limitations as claim 1, and hence similarly rejected as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12. This claim contains all the same or similarly limitations as claim 2, and hence similarly rejected as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13. This claim contains all the same or similarly limitations as claim 3, and hence similarly rejected as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14. This claim contains all the same or similarly limitations as claim 4, and hence similarly rejected as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15. This claim contains all the same or similarly limitations as claim 5, and hence similarly rejected as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16. This claim contains all the same or similarly limitations as claim 6, and hence similarly rejected as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17. This claim contains all the same or similarly limitations as claim 7, and hence similarly rejected as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 18. This claim contains all the same or similarly limitations as claim 8, and hence similarly rejected as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19. This claim contains all the same or similarly limitations as claim 9, and hence similarly rejected as claim 9.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 20140136652 A1 to Narayanaswami et al. (hereinafter “Narayanaswami”) in view of CN103647634 to TIANTIAN et al. – provided by Applicant in IDS of the Parent Application 16441556 (hereinafter “TIANTIAN”), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 20180219864 A1 to HU et al. (hereinafter “HU”)
Regarding Claim 10. The combination of Narayanaswami-TIANTIAN discloses the system for information interaction according to claim 8, however it does not explicitly teach, but HU from same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
“wherein the electronic tag is further configured to:
receive an updated two-dimensional code from the first terminal via the information interaction platform (HU, Para [0040-0041]: … in this embodiment of this application, the primary account client may further generate and/or actively update the Quick Response Code, and inform the server of the Quick Response Code or updates to the Quick Response Code …); and
replace the two-dimensional code by the updated two-dimensional code after the two-dimensional code is scanned by the second terminal (HU, Para [0040-0041]: … the server may instruct the primary account client to , 0048regularly update the Quick Response Code. Specifically, an updating period and an updating rule may be sent to the primary account client. The updating period may include a time period such as a time interval. The primary account client sets a Quick Response Code according to the updating period and the updating rule. For example, the valid duration may be updated, or the primary account may be updated (For example, an identifier is updated). In other words, the server may send an instruction to the second client device to update the expiration time indicator represented by the encoded image at a predetermined time interval …).”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of HU into the combined teachings of Narayanaswami-TIANTIAN, because it discloses that, “a secondary account is logged in to by using a Quick Response Code, so that login security and convenience can be improved. In addition, because information about the Quick Response Code has a valid duration, the secondary account is not permitted to be permanently logged in to. Therefore, the secondary account can be prevented from being maliciously used after being stolen (HU, Para [0011]”.
Regarding Claim 20. This claim contains all the same or similarly limitations as claim 10, and hence similarly rejected as claim 10.
Pertinent Prior Arts
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170186251 A1; Lee; Hyun-woo: Lee disclose a car management system that includes a second terminal generating first and second tokens in response to a request from a first terminal to use a vehicle, and sending the first token to the first terminal; and a third terminal authorizing the first terminal to use the vehicle by generating an access key that provides authority to use the vehicle using the first token and the second token in response to a request from the first terminal for the access key, and providing the generated access key to the first terminal.
The present disclosure relates generally to vehicles, and more particularly, to a car management system and method when a vehicle is shared among multiple users.
US 20140128028 A1; Bone et al.: Bone discloses device, system and method to control access by any given mobile terminal to a mobile telecommunications network, a smartcard (i.e. a SIM) is arranged to include a list of device identifiers corresponding to one or more mobile terminals together with an indication of their respective access categories (i.e. black-list, grey-list or white-list). This list is constructed from an updated list of identifiers of mobile devices into which the smartcard has been inserted. This may be enhanced with a limited number of generic excluded identifiers. The smartcard thus maintains a local database of banned devices and/or devices that need to be monitored by the network.
Bone discloses that when a mobile requests services from the network, the signaling required to set up the required connection includes a message from the equipment containing a unique equipment identifier such as the IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity).
Bone further discloses that it is the IMEI that is stored in the relevant category of the EIR. Thus, in establishing a service, the IMEI may be checked against the EIR, to assess which equipment category the mobile phone falls into. A "black" device is one that has been reported stolen or whose operation on the network is otherwise determined to be undesirable for the network operator (for instance it may be unauthorized or in some way defective: it would be detrimental for network operation to allow a device that has malfunctioning power control). Black-listed mobiles will denied access to the network.
US 20180034631 A1; RIES et al.: RIES discloses an authentication system of objects, physical or virtual, comprising an authentication mark and, as an option, an authentication message, generated by an authentication device and controlled by a verification/decoding device in combination with an authentication server managed by an authenticating authority. The authentication mark in the tag/message may comprise GNSS RF raw signals and/or GNSS raw data. The authentication mark comprises data and may be formatted, for example, in a bitstream, a data stream, a QRCode, an RFID tag or an NFC tag. The authentication server is configured to cause a GNSS signals simulator to reproduce the GNSS RF raw signals and/or GNSS raw data at the location and time interval of production of the object and to compare the results of the simulation to the authentication mark comprising data received directly from the authentication device or received from a verification device and issue a validation, a denial or a doubt from the comparison.
The invention relates to an authentication tag comprising a stamp of a location and time of production or modification of an object, physical or virtual, or a service. The invention also relates to a device to produce a code and encode the tag and another device to decode the same, as well as to an authentication server to authenticate a tag.
US 20150271098 A1; SOMADDER et al: SOMADDER discloses a method for authenticating a user's secondary client device with a data center interacting with the user's primary client device includes capturing a quick response (QR) code displayed at the primary client device using the secondary client device, wherein the QR code is generated by the data center for the primary client device, analyzing the QR code at the secondary client device to extract information for initializing communication with the data center, providing information contained in the QR code to the data center by the secondary client device, wherein the information contained in the QR code is utilized by the data center to authenticate the secondary client device, and initializing interaction between the secondary client device and the data center when the data center authenticates the secondary client device.
The information provided by the secondary client device may include the QR code itself. Because the QR code is unique to the user of the primary client device, providing the QR code to the data center allows the data center to authenticate the secondary client device. Alternatively, the information provided by the secondary client device may include unique information contained in the QR code that is displayed on the primary client device. Providing unique information contained in the QR code to the data center allows the data center to authenticate the secondary client device.
The data center verifies the QR code or QR code information provided by the secondary client device by comparing the QR code or QR code information provided by the secondary client device to the QR code or QR code information generated for the primary client device. When the QR code or QR code information provided by the secondary client device matches that generated for the primary client device, the data center is able to authenticate the secondary client device. This is because the secondary client device would only be able to capture the QR code or unique information contained in the QR code by being in the same location as the primary client device.
US 20130068837 A1; Dollard: Dollard discloses user authentication method and system where user credentials are passed to a mobile computing device using scannable images. A scannable image is generated based on a previously created user profile. A user accesses a website from a computer and, in response, the scannable image is locally displayed on the computer. The mobile computing device may be authenticated by capturing the scannable image that is displayed on the computer. In the event that a user profile stored on the mobile computing device matches the previously created user profile that is encoded in the scannable image, the mobile computing device is authenticated. The user may then directly access data and/or interact with the website using the authenticated mobile computing device.
US 20160147990 A1; SCHNEIDER: SCHNEIDER discloses a method for authenticating an authorization of a user of a motor vehicle. The method includes sending a request signal for an authentication code to a computer. The method also includes providing the authentication code via the computer to an onboard device included in the motor vehicle.
Exemplary embodiments (i.e. FIG. 4) relate to a method for associating an identity of a user with an identity of a motor vehicle. The method includes sending a request signal for an authorization code to a computer. The request signal also includes a piece of information about an identity of the motor vehicle. The method also includes providing the authorization code via the computer to an onboard device included in the motor vehicle. In addition, the method includes displaying the authorization code as a two-dimensional matrix code via a display device included in the onboard device. The method furthermore includes recording the authorization code from a display device via a mobile device. Furthermore, the method includes transferring the authorization code and a piece of identification information to the computer via the mobile device. In addition, the method includes associating the authorization code and the piece of information about the identity of the motor vehicle with an identity of the user previously stored by the computer, based on the piece of identification information. The method may enable an identification of a primary user of a vehicle with the aid of an application (app) running on the mobile device. The method may also be used for a simplified registration of a user for a motor vehicle. Furthermore, the method may enable an optical exchange of data.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAHABUB S AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-0364. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached on (571)272-3811. 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.
/MAHABUB S AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434