DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in reply to papers filed on 2026-03-02. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 15 is/are independent.
Applicant's arguments/amendments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Note that this action is made FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim(s) 1 (see page(s) 9-10 of Applicant’s Remarks), Applicant argues that the prior art of record (in particular, U.S. Patent 11100548 to Gray (hereinafter "Gray '548")) does not disclose “authenticating, by the conference system, the second device by the second authentication method, wherein the authenticating the second device includes associating the second device with the user after the verifying”. However, Gray '548 explicitly states that the session specific code is, in some instances, unique to user of first device [Gray '548 c. 9 l. 41-51]. Further, after the second device is authenticated using this code, the second device is permitted to perform privileged actions as the first user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 42-65], for example signing financial documents [Gray '548 c. 2 l. 44-59, c. 11 l. 51-62]. Taken together, a person having ordinary skill in the art reading Gray '548 would have understood that Gray '548 uses the user-unique code to authenticate the second device as the same user and that only under such circumstances could the system permit the second device to sign financial documents as the first user. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive.
With respect to claim(s) 1 (see page(s) 9-10 of Applicant’s Remarks), Applicant argues that the prior art of record (in particular, Gray '548) does not disclose “enabling, based on the associating the second device with the user, video or audio data provisioning between the first device and the second device”. Note that because of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (see below) necessitated by Applicant's amendment, Examiner interprets this limitation to mean setting up transmission between the server and the first and/or second device of the video or audio data of the conference. Of course, Gray '548 fully teaches configuring the authenticated second device to receive some or all of the video or audio data of the conference session [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 42-65, c. 8 l. 8-40]. For all these reasons, Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining claim(s) is/are based on Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and have been considered as detailed above.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 2026-03-02 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 (pre-AIA ) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With regard to claim 1, the specification does not describe "video or audio data provisioning between the first device and the second device". In the art of mobile devices, "provisioning" is a term of art. However, the Specification nowhere mentions "provisioning". The Specification certainly does not describe a "provisioning" of either the first or the second device as that term is commonly used in the art. Further, the Specification at best describes passing an authentication code from the first device to the second device as part of an authentication protocol. The Specification nowhere describes transmitting video or audio data from the first device to the second device responsive to successful authentication of the second device. There is no disclosure of how the recited "video or audio data provisioning between the first device and the second device" would be implemented, what type of "provisioning" would be appropriate in this system, or what effects are to be obtained by any transmission of video or audio data from the first to the second device responsive to a successful authentication of the second device. As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of an information processing device that includes a "video or audio data provisioning between the first device and the second device" function. Claims 2-21 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1 or because they, or the claims they depend from, contain corresponding subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 (pre-AIA ) because the specification, while being enabling for various elements of claim 1, does not reasonably provide enablement for "video or audio data provisioning between the first device and the second device". The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
A determination as to nonenablement is based on consideration of all the evidence as a whole. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 740 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (relevant factors include (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (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). See also MPEP § 2164.01(a) and § 2164.04.
In the art of mobile devices, "provisioning" is a term of art. However, the Specification nowhere mentions "provisioning". The Specification certainly does not enable a "provisioning" of either the first or the second device as that term is commonly used in the art. Likewise, the Specification does not enable any transmission of video or audio data from the first to the second device responsive to a successful authentication of the second device. Indeed, all the transmission of video or audio data in this Specification responsive to a successful authentication of the second device is between the server and one of the first and/or second devices. Here, there is a complete lack of direction from the inventor or working examples and no way to predict what effect is to be obtained by such a feature.
While the applicability of other factors for and against subject-matter eligibility has been considered, the weight of the factor(s) described above compels this conclusion. Claims 2-21 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1 or because they, or the claims they depend from, contain corresponding subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 (pre-AIA ) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the phrase "enabling, based on the associating the second device with the user, video or audio data provisioning between the first device and the second device" makes the claims ambiguous and therefore indefinite. Because the claim fails to sufficiently relate the "video or audio data" or the "enabling" of "provisioning" such to the other claim features, the claim is amenable of multiple plausible constructions (e.g., (i) that this limitation is meant to describe setting up transmission between the server and the first and/or second device of the video or audio data of the conference and (ii) that the first device must configure the second device to receive video or audio data from the first device), leaving a person having ordinary skill in the art unable to determine what the Applicant does and does not regard as the invention. See Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1207, *11 (BPAI 2008). In the interest of compact prosecution and for purposes of applying the art to the claims only, Examiner interprets this limitation to mean setting up transmission between the server and the first and/or second device of the video or audio data of the conference. To continue with this interpretation, Applicant must confirm it with a suitable amendment. Independent claims 8, 15 suffer the same defects mutadis mutandis.
Dependent claims 2-21 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected claims 1, 8, 15 and in view of their dependence thereon.
Summary of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
The following table summarizes the rejections set forth in detail below of the claims over the prior art.
Claim No.
Gray '548
Gray '548 in view of Krishnan '471
Gray '548 in view of Allain '615
1
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
2
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
3
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
4
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
5
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
6
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
7
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
8
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
9
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
10
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
11
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
12
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
13
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
14
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
15
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
16
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
17
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
18
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
19
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
20
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
21
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 15-17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 11100548 to Gray (hereinafter "Gray '548"). Gray '548 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 1 (independent):
Gray '548 discloses a computer-implemented method for a conference system (voice and data exchange conference session [Gray '548 c. 2 l. 44 – c. 3. l. 3]; multi-party conference [Gray '548 c. 9 l. 46-51])
Gray '548 discloses authenticating, by the conference system, a first device by a first authentication method, wherein the authenticating includes associating the first device with a user (first user on first device authenticates via login credentials to being session [Gray '548 Fig. 5, c. 12 l. 26-32, c. 8 l. 7-40] for reviewing access controlled information [Gray '548 c. 2 l. 7-12, c. 2. l. 31-35])
Gray '548 discloses providing, by the conference system, access to the conference system to the first device based on the first device being associated with the user (first user on first device engages in session [Gray '548 Fig. 5, c. 12 l. 26-32])
Gray '548 discloses receiving, by the conference system, a request to authenticate a second device associated with the user to the conference system (first user on first device requests additional device be authorized [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 34-42; Fig. 5])
Gray '548 discloses providing, responsive to the request, information for a second authentication method utilizing both the first device and the second device to authenticate the second device associated with the user, to at least one of the first device and a second device (sends session-specific code to first device [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5] as QR code to be scanned by second device [Gray '548 c. 10 l. 58-67])
Gray '548 discloses the information includes an identification of the user of the first device (session-specific code [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5] identifies first user [Gray '548 c. 10 l. 47-67]; system associates second device with first user based one session-specific code without requiring login credentials from second device [Gray '548 c. 11 l. 6-11, c. 8 l. 50-62])
Gray '548 discloses verifying, by the conference system, that the user of the second device is the user of the first device based on the identification (once verified, second device can perform privileged actions as first user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 42-65]; second device is same user or different user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 15-16, c. 3 l. 18-62, c. 8 l. 21-49])
Gray '548 discloses authenticating, by the conference system, the second device by the second authentication method, wherein the authenticating the second device includes associating the second device with the user after the verifying (once verified, second device can perform privileged actions as first user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 42-65, c. 8 l. 8-40]; second device is same user or different user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 15-16]; session specific code is unique to user of first device [Gray '548 c. 9 l. 41-51] who is authenticated to sign financial documents using second device once it is authenticated via that unique code [Gray '548 c. 2 l. 44-59, c. 11 l. 51-62])
Gray '548 discloses enabling, based on the associating the second device with the user, video or audio data provisioning between the first device and the second device (once verified, second device can perform privileged actions as first user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 42-65, c. 8 l. 8-40]; second device is same user or different user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 15-16])
Gray '548 discloses providing, by the conference system, access to the conference system to the second device based on the second device being associated with the user (once verified, second device can perform privileged actions as first user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 42-65, c. 8 l. 8-40]; second device is same user or different user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 15-16])
Per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Gray '548 discloses providing, responsive to the request, information for a second authentication method comprises providing, by the conference system, information for a second authentication method to the first device; and the second authentication method comprises sensing the information using a sensing device of the second device (sends session-specific code to first device [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5] as QR code to be scanned by second device [Gray '548 c. 10 l. 58-67])
Per claim 3 (dependent on claim 2):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above, incorporated herein by reference
Gray '548 discloses the information is visible information; the sensing device is a camera of the second device; and sensing the information using a sensing device of the second device comprises sensing the visible information shown in the first device by using the camera (sends session-specific code to first device [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5] as QR code to be scanned by second device [Gray '548 c. 10 l. 58-67])
Per claim 4 (dependent on claim 2):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above, incorporated herein by reference
Gray '548 discloses the visible information is shown in a conference screen of the first device (sends session-specific code to first device [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5] as QR code to be scanned by second device [Gray '548 c. 10 l. 58-67]; voice and data exchange conference session [Gray '548 c. 2 l. 44 – c. 3. l. 3]; multi-party conference [Gray '548 c. 9 l. 46-51])
Per claim 8 (independent):
Gray '548 discloses a conference system comprising a memory configured to store operations and one or more processors configured to perform the operations (authenticates second user for access to conference, event, session, etc. [Gray '548 c. 2 l. 44 – c. 3. l. 3; c. 9 l. 46-51]; processor(s), memory, computer readable media, storage, executable instructions [Gray '548 c. 13 l. 49 – c. 14 l. 26])
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 9 (dependent on claim 8):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 2 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 10 (dependent on claim 9):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 9 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 3 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 11 (dependent on claim 9):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 9 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 4 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 15 (independent):
Gray '548 discloses a computer readable storage device having instructions stored thereon, execution of which, by one or more processing devices, causes the one or more processing devices to perform operations (authenticates second user for access to conference, event, session, etc. [Gray '548 c. 2 l. 44 – c. 3. l. 3; c. 9 l. 46-51]; processor(s), memory, computer readable media, storage, executable instructions [Gray '548 c. 13 l. 49 – c. 14 l. 26])
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 1 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 16 (dependent on claim 15):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 2 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 17 (dependent on claim 16):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 16 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 3 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 21 (dependent on claim 1):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Gray '548 discloses wherein both the first device and the second device are associated with a same user ID (once verified, second device can perform privileged actions as first user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 42-65]; second device is same user or different user [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 15-16])
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 that 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gray '548 in view of U.S. Publication 20140064471 to Krishnan et al. (hereinafter "Krishnan '471"). Krishnan '471 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 2):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above, incorporated herein by reference
Gray '548 does not disclose the information is audio information; the sensing device is a microphone of the second device; and sensing the information using a sensing device of the second device comprises sensing the audio information played by the first device by using the microphone
Further:
Krishnan '471 discloses the information is audio information; the sensing device is a microphone of the second device; and sensing the information using a sensing device of the second device comprises sensing the audio information played by the first device by using the microphone (new devices capture conference identifier as audio [Krishnan '471 ¶ 0039-0040])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Gray '548 with the audio or visual provision of the conference identifier Krishnan '471 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the information is audio information; the sensing device is a microphone of the second device; and sensing the information using a sensing device of the second device comprises sensing the audio information played by the first device by using the microphone
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because visual provision of the conference identifier via a conference screen or provision of an audio conference identifier would simplify authentication for users present in the proximity. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Krishnan '471 teaches [Krishnan '471 ¶ 0038-0040] modifying a conference authentication scheme [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5] such as that of Gray '548 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Gray '548 and Krishnan '471 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (audio or visual provision of the conference identifier [Krishnan '471 ¶ 0038-0040]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (conference authentication scheme [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (audio or visual provision of the conference identifier [Krishnan '471 ¶ 0038-0040]) to known devices and/or methods (conference authentication scheme [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (conference authentication scheme [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5] via audio or visual provision of the conference identifier [Krishnan '471 ¶ 0038-0040]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 12 (dependent on claim 9):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 9 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 5 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 18 (dependent on claim 16):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 16 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 5 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gray '548 in view of U.S. Publication 20150222615 to Allain et al. (hereinafter "Allain '615"). Hessler '699 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Allain '615 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 6 (dependent on claim 1):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Gray '548 does not disclose providing, responsive to the request, information for a second authentication method comprises providing, by the conference system, information for a second authentication method to the second device; and the second authentication method comprises sensing the information using a sensing device of the first device
Further:
Allain '615 discloses providing, responsive to the request, information for a second authentication method comprises providing, by the conference system, information for a second authentication method to the second device; and the second authentication method comprises sensing the information using a sensing device of the first device (untrusted device displays access code that trusted device senses [Allain '615 ¶ 0085-0089, Fig. 6]; conference [Allain '615 ¶ 0003] access code is QR code sensed by camera or sound sensed by microphone [Allain '615 ¶ 0064-0065])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Gray '548 with the reversed authentication transmissions of Allain '615 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
providing, responsive to the request, information for a second authentication method comprises providing, by the conference system, information for a second authentication method to the second device; and the second authentication method comprises sensing the information using a sensing device of the first device
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because reversing the authentication transmissions would allow the user to perform all authentication interactions from their own already trusted device, rather than using the untrusted terminal for some of them. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Allain '615 teaches [Allain '615 ¶ 0085-0089, Fig. 6; ¶ 0040, 0026] modifying a conference authentication scheme [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5] such as that of Gray '548 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Gray '548 and Allain '615 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (reversed authentication transmissions [Allain '615 ¶ 0085-0089, Fig. 6; ¶ 0040, 0026]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (conference authentication scheme [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (reversed authentication transmissions [Allain '615 ¶ 0085-0089, Fig. 6; ¶ 0040, 0026]) to known devices and/or methods (conference authentication scheme [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (conference authentication scheme authenticates new devices [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5] via reversed authentication transmissions [Allain '615 ¶ 0085-0089, Fig. 6; ¶ 0040, 0026]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 7 (dependent on claim 6):
Gray '548 in view of Allain '615 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 6 above, incorporated herein by reference
Gray '548 does not disclose the information is visible information; the sensing device is a camera of the first device; and sensing the information using a sensing device of the first device comprises sensing the visible information shown in the second device by using the camera
However, Gray '548 discloses the information is visible information; the sensing device is a camera of one of the devices; and sensing the information using a sensing device of the one of the devices comprises sensing the visible information shown in the other of the devices by using the camera (sends session-specific code to first device [Gray '548 c. 12 l. 37-50; Fig. 5] as QR code to be scanned by second device [Gray '548 c. 10 l. 58-67]; voice and data exchange conference session [Gray '548 c. 2 l. 44 – c. 3. l. 3]; multi-party conference [Gray '548 c. 9 l. 46-51])
Further:
Allain '615 discloses the information is visible information; the sensing device is a camera of the first device; and sensing the information using a sensing device of the first device comprises sensing the visible information shown in the second device by using the camera (untrusted device displays access code that trusted device senses [Allain '615 ¶ 0085-0089, Fig. 6]; conference [Allain '615 ¶ 0003] access code is QR code sensed by camera or sound sensed by microphone [Allain '615 ¶ 0064-0065])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 6, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Hessler '699 with the reversed authentication transmissions of Allain '615 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the information is visible information; the sensing device is a camera of the first device; and sensing the information using a sensing device of the first device comprises sensing the visible information shown in the second device by using the camera
Per claim 13 (dependent on claim 8):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 6 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 14 (dependent on claim 13):
Gray '548 in view of Allain '615 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 13 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 7 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 19 (dependent on claim 15):
Gray '548 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 6 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 20 (dependent on claim 19):
Gray '548 in view of Allain '615 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 19 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 7 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C PARSONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1475. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWRF 7:30-4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/THEODORE C PARSONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494