DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1-3, 6 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “HTTPS”, “TLS”, “IMSI”, “IMEI”,
Claim 1: “the user’s driver’s license” should read “a user’s driver’s license”
Claim 1: “the SIM card” should read “a SIM card”
Claim 1: “the geographical coordinates” should read “geographical coordinates”
Claim 2: “CMOS” and “NIC”
Claim 3: “the use of multi-factor authentication” should read ““using multi-factor authentication”
Claim 3: “OAuth2” and “SAML”
Claim 6: “AI algorithm”
Claim 8: “the k-means clustering algorithm” should read “the k-means clustering algorithms”
Claim 11: “ARM”
For the above, abbreviations should not be used upon first recitation in the claims; the full term must be spelled out at first use, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.
Claims 1-14 should be renumbered in order for the dependent claims to follow the independent claim they depend from.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “QR code scanner module” and “AI computation module” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the user’s device” throughout the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. In the preamble, “a user device” is recited. However, the “user device” in the preamble can’t be the same device as the “user’s device” in the body of the claim, since the first step of the method has the user device recited in the preamble transmitting a QR code to the user’s device. The same device can’t transmit information to itself. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean a different user device.
Claim 1 recites “storing the received IP address”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the bolded limitation because not only was an IP address was not mentioned in the claim before, but there is also no recitation of a received IP address. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “storing a received IP address”.
Claim 1 recites “executing the steps a-g as atomic transactions…”. This bolded limitation renders the claim indefinite because Examiner is unable to determine the scope of the limitation. None of the steps are labeled and Examiner is unable to determine which steps Applicant is referring to by stating “the steps a-g”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean that “step a” corresponds to the “transmitting” step, step (b) corresponds to the “activating” step, ….step (g) to corresponds to the “applying” step.
The dependent claims 3-8 and 13-14 are also rejected under 112b for failing to cure the deficiency above.
Claim 3 recites “the use of multi-factor authentication algorithms like OAuth2 or SAML for secure user login”. The claim is indefinite because Examiner is unable to determine the scope of the limitation. The claim recites “like OAuth2 or SAML for secure user login”. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is uncertain whether the multi-factor authentication algorithm is an OAuth2 or SAML algorithm or if these algorithms are just example of the algorithms and any analogous multi-factor authentication algorithm will read on the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “securely logging in a user using OAuth2 or SMAL multi-factor authentication algorithm”.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the geolocation tracking algorithm employs Kalman filtering to predict future user locations.” The bolded limitation renders the claim indefinite because there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to mean “a geolocation tracking algorithm”. Furthermore, Claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “predicting future user locations”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “predicting future user location using a geolocation tracking algorithm comprising a Kalman filter”.
Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “delivering low latency contextual content”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “delivering low latency contextual content using Content Delivery Network (CDN)”.
Claim 11 recites “wherein said multi-core processor is of the ARM architecture”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the bolded limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “wherein said multi-core processor is of an ARM architecture”. Furthermore, Claim 11 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “securely processing data”.
Claim 14 recites “the data transmission and storage”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the bolded limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “data transmission and storage”. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether “the data” refers to the digitally signed QR code that is transmitted in claim 1 and/or the received IP address and IMSI or IMEI numbers stored in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are non-obvious because, although prior art references in the examiner’s possession may disclose individual limitations of the claimed invention, a complete rejection would require combining multiple references in a manner that would constitute piecemeal rejection, which should be avoided per MPEP 707.07(g).
The closest prior art is Wang (US 20190026121). It is directed towards redirecting multimedia captured on a mobile device to a virtual desktop using image scanning. It discloses “transmitting a digitally-signed QR code to the user's device through a secure HTTPS connection, the QR code encoded with a unique session identifier; activating a native or web-based QR code scanner application on the user's device to decode said QR code and establish a WebSocket connection for real-time data transfer; ” (paragraph 21-22, 24, “The content encoded in the QR code may be formatted in the following manner: “https://10.112.119.95:8057” where 10.112.119.95 is the IP address of the virtual desktop client device 106 and 8057 is the specified port of the web server 120.”, “Once displayed, the QR code may be scanned using a digital camera 126 of a mobile device 130. For example, the user may start the live camera view of the mobile device 130 and aim the camera 126 of the mobile device 130 at the QR code in order to place the QR code within the field of view (FOV) of the digital camera 126 and to enable the mobile device to scan the QR code. The mobile device 130 may contain QR reader software 134 to scan the QR code and to decode the information encoded therein.”, “When the user uses the mobile device 130 to scan the QR code displayed on the virtual desktop client device 106, the web browser 136 is launched. The mobile device 130 connects to the web server 120 over the network connection 122 (e.g., WebSocket connection) and runs the web application 138 in the web browser 136 on the mobile device.”)
The closest prior art is Strange (US 2019/0066224). It is directed towards obtaining insurance offers using mobile image capture. It discloses “utilizing Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology to capture text-based information from a digital image of the user's driver's license, said digital image transmitted
However, Strange does not disclose but Eisen (WO 2018/111858), which is directed towards network enabled account creation using optical detection, discloses “transmitting digital image via a TLS encrypted channel” (paragraph 105, “The communications between the user device and authentication server, authentication server and service provider server, and user device and service provider server can be secured using various encryption techniques. Any combination of server certificates, secure sockets layer (SSL), secured protocol such as TLS (transport layer security)”).
The closest prior art is Bashar Nema, “Geolocation Android Mobile phones using GSM/UMTS”, published by Baghdad Science Journal, in 2019, hereinafter “Nema”. It discloses “storing
However, Nema does not disclose that the SQlite is encrypted or nor does it disclose storing an IP address. Straub (US 20160092176) directed towards efficient and intuitive databinding for mobile application discloses an encrypted SQlite database and Gervasiychuk (WO 2015026255), directed towards detecting a proxy connection, discloses storing an IP address in a SQlite database (paragraph 14, “storing a first origination IP address associated with received DNS request and the domain name information in the database system”, paragraph 43, “it should be noted that the database system 103 may be implemented based on any now known or later developed type of database software, such as a relational database management system, including, without limitation, MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, SQL Anywhere, PostgreSQL, SQLite, Firebird and/or MaxDB, which are well-known to persons of skill in the art”).
The closest prior art is Dziabiak (US 2018/0336639). It is directed towards using simulated consumer profiles to form calibration data for models. It discloses “employing a neural network-based Al algorithm to analyze aggregated user data, geolocation, and contextual information to generate content and insurance recommendations; applying k-means clustering Al algorithms to sift through user profiles and predict the most relevant insurance carriers based on a multitude of features including driving history, geographical location, and user behavior;” (paragraph 26-27, “Some embodiments use an algorithm to formulate an aggregate (e.g., a single value based on many values) score for a given consumer's key attributes, assessing and providing a simple measure of risk as it relates to an insurance provider's potential willingness to underwrite a consumer. In some embodiments, attributes considered include a consumer's gender, marital status, age, driving history (e.g., a weighted score based on number and type of past violations, accidents, tickets, and claims within a trailing duration of time), assumed (or actual) credit rating, current insurance status, home ownership status, and annual miles driven (e.g., as estimated or reported by the user). The score is referred to as an insurability score.”, “Once the consumer's score is formulated, some embodiments compare their score against the average score for similar consumer's in their location, e.g., based off of the originating consumer's zip code. The originating consumer's score, along with the local average score, may then be plotted and displayed on a gauge for visual aide.”, paragraph 75, “the model may be trained with, for example, a gradient descent optimization, such as a stochastic gradient descent used to train a neural network. Some embodiments may determine initial parameters, such as initial weights of a neural network with multiple hidden layers and output perceptrons corresponding to ranges of scores, and then iteratively adjust those parameters in a direction that decreases an aggregate amount of error or increase as an aggregate amount of fitness, as indicated by a partial derivative of the aggregate measure of error or fitness relative to the respective parameters.”).
The closest prior art is Liberman (US 11514448). It is directed towards hierarchical consensus protocol framework for implementing electronic transaction processing systems (39:28-44, “The XA standard is a specification by The Open Group for distributed transaction processing (DTP). It describes the interface between the global transaction manager and the local resource manager. The goal of XA is to allow multiple resources (such as databases, application servers, message queues, transactional caches, etc.) to be accessed within the same transaction, thereby preserving the ACID properties across applications. XA uses a two-phase commit to ensure that all resources either commit or rollback any particular transaction consistently (all do the same). XA stands for “eXtended Architecture” and is an X/Open group standard for executing a “global transaction” that accesses more than one back-end data-store. XA specifies how a transaction manager will roll up the transactions against the different data-stores into an “atomic” transaction and execute this with the two-phase commit (2PC) protocol for the transaction.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571) 272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628