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 .
This office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on February 17, 2025.
Claims 1, 28, 32-33 are amended. Claims 2-3, 9, 13-25, 34-49, 51-53 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, 26-33, 50 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 17, 2025 has been entered.
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
The new amendments pertain to specifically the Wi-Fi mode of communication. Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation that the claims however recite that the determined mode of communication comprises a list of options which include the Wi-Fi mode of communication joined by the conjunction “or”. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is noted by the Examiner that the claims can be rejected under prior art which do not pertain to the Wi-Fi mode of communication while avoiding the new limitations pertaining to service set identifiers (SSIDs). For example, it is noted that reference Rakshit also teaches a Bluetooth form of communication in addition to Wi-Fi (Col. 3, lines 20-41). It is recommended by the Examiner that the Wi-Fi mode of communication be positively recited, instead of as an optional form of communication, if the Applicant believes these newly amended limitations pertaining to SSIDs to overcome the prior art. For the purpose of compact prosecution, these limitations pertaining to SSIDs are given positive weight in the following rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10-12, 26-33, 50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0255097 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Li”, and in view of Rakshit et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,553,038 B1) hereinafter referred to as “Rakshit”, and in view of Klein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0035280 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Klein”.
Regarding Claim 1:
Li teaches the following limitations:
A system for enabling communication of data between a primary entity [user equipment] and a secondary entity [network device], the system comprising: one or more processors operatively coupled with the primary entity and a memory, wherein said memory stores instructions which when executed by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to (Fig. 2, Par. [0023], Par. [0027], Par. [0117]).
generate one or more data parameters [target application information] based on one or more target applications requested by one or more users associated with the primary entity (Par. [0028], Par. [0034], Par. [0035]). Li teaches a user selecting and requesting a target application for verification by creating target application information and attribute information.
wherein the primary entity is operably coupled to a subscriber identity module (SIM) card (Par. [0028], Par. [0055], Par. [0097], Par. [0120]). Li teaches the user equipment being a mobile phone with a SIM card.
encrypt, using one or more primary techniques, the generated one or more data parameters based on the requested one or more target applications (Par. [0028]). Li teaches performing encryption on the data for secure transmission.
(taught by Rakshit below)
(taught by Rakshit below) (taught by Klein below) (taught by Klein below)
Rakshit teaches the following limitations:
determine a mode of communication via an artificial intelligence (AI) engine, based on the generated one or more encrypted data, wherein the determined mode of communication comprises any of: at least an audio mode of communication, at least a Bluetooth mode of communication, at least a quick response code (QR) based mode of communication, or at least a wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) based mode of communication (Col. 13, lines 20-25, Col. 12, lines 15-49, Col. 3, lines 20-41). Rakshit teaches using an AI component to select the optimum protocol for communication based on data parameters, and such communication protocols include Wi-Fi communication.
and enable the communication of the one or more encrypted data from the primary entity to the secondary entity via the determined mode of communication (Col. 12, lines 15-49, Col. 20, lines 1-3). Rakshit teaches performing tasks with the selected communication protocol.
Li teaches a user equipment communicating with a server with regards to a target application by generating application/attribute information, but does not teach determining a mode of communication. Rakshit however teaches that artificial intelligence can be used to determine a communication protocol based on communication parameters with the benefit of optimizing communication (Col. 12, lines 15-18). 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 network communication system of Li with the communication network choice of Rakshit in order to gain the benefit of optimized communication through AI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the communication system of Li would have been compatible with the communication system of Rakshit as Li teaches generating application/attribute information which could be used by the AI of Rakshit to choose a network for communication. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using the AI of Rakshit would have the benefit of improved communication through optimization based on the requested task parameters. Klein teaches the following limitations:
wherein one or more service set identifiers (SSIDs) are associated with the Wi-Fi based mode of communication to enable the communication of the one or more encrypted data from the primary entity to the secondary entity (Par. [0038], Par. [0046]). Klein teaches that Wi-Fi communication can use service set identifiers (SSIDs) to ensure proper data delivery. Note that the phrase “to enable” suggests intended usage which carry little patentable weight, and the usage of these SSIDs are usable for the data communication taught by Li/Rakshit above. wherein the one or more processors are configured to update the one or more SSIDs within a predefined interval, and wherein the predefined interval is associated with the secondary entity (Par. [0064], Par. [0068], Par. [0074]). Klein teaches that devices in their system continually update their SSIDs over a selected time period, and these pertain to devices including that of the secondary entity. Li/Rakshit teach a secure transmission system including using Wi-Fi, but do not teach using SSIDs which are updated in a predefined interval. Klein however teaches that Wi-Fi communication can comprise using continually update SSIDs, and these SSIDs have the benefit of ensuring proper data delivery. 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 network communication system of Li/Rakshit with the SSIDs of Klein in order to gain the benefit of ensuring proper data delivery. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the communication system of Li/Rakshit would have been compatible with the SSIDs of Klein as both pertain to Wi-Fi communication, and that using such continually updated SSIDs would have the benefit of improved communication through ensuring proper data delivery.
Regarding Claim 32:
Claim 32 is drawn to the method corresponding to the system same as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore, method Claim 32 corresponds to system Claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of motivation/combination of references as used above.
Regarding Claim 33:
Claim 33 is drawn to the user equipment, i.e. apparatus, corresponding to the system same as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore, apparatus Claim 33 corresponds to system Claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of motivation/combination of references as used above.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Rakshit/Klein and further in view of Nix (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0095648 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Nix”.
Regarding Claim 4:
Nix teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to encrypt the generated one or more data parameters using a certified authority/public key infrastructure (CA/PKI) feature (Par. [0017], Par. [0060], Par. [0112]). Nix teaches encryption using public key infrastructure with a certificate authority.
Li/Rakshit/Klein teach using encryption for secure transmission, but does not specify the exact type of encryption performed. Nix however teaches that it is well known in the art that encryption can be performed with a certificate authority/public key infrastructure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the encryption of Li/Rakshit/Klein with the encryption of Nix in order to gain the predictable result of using CA/PKI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the encryption of Li/Rakshit/Klein and the encryption of Nix are alternative substitutes, as they both relate to encryption for data transmission, and it would have been predictable to use one of the encryption techniques described by Nix to implement the encryption of Li/Rakshit/Klein.
Regarding Claim 5:
Nix teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to encrypt the one or more generated data parameters using one or more asymmetric keys and the one or more primary techniques (Par. [0106], Par. [0110]). Nix teaches encryption using RSA/ECC and asymmetric keys.
Li/Rakshit/Klein teach using encryption for secure transmission, but does not specify the exact type of encryption performed. Nix however teaches that it is well known in the art that encryption can be performed using asymmetric keys. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the encryption of Li/Rakshit/Klein with the encryption of Nix in order to gain the predictable result of using asymmetric keys. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the encryption of Li/Rakshit/Klein and the encryption of Nix are alternative substitutes, as they both relate to encryption for data transmission, and it would have been predictable to use one of the encryption techniques described by Nix to implement the encryption of Li/Rakshit/Klein.
Regarding Claim 6:
Nix teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to encrypt the one or more generated data parameters using one or more symmetric keys and the one or more primary techniques (Par. [0135], Par. [0195]). Nix teaches encryption using AES/DES and symmetric keys.
Li/Rakshit/Klein teach using encryption for secure transmission, but does not specify the exact type of encryption performed. Nix however teaches that it is well known in the art that encryption can be performed using symmetric keys. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the encryption of Li/Rakshit/Klein with the encryption of Nix in order to gain the predictable result of using symmetric keys. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the encryption of Li/Rakshit/Klein and the encryption of Nix are alternative substitutes, as they both relate to encryption for data transmission, and it would have been predictable to use one of the encryption techniques described by Nix to implement the encryption of Li/Rakshit/Klein.
Regarding Claim 7:
Nix teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more primary techniques comprise any or a combination of a Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) technique and an elliptical curve cryptography (ECC) technique to encrypt the one or more generated data parameters with the one or more asymmetric keys (Par. [0106], Par. [0110]). Nix taught that the asymmetric key encryption can be performed using RSA/ECC.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8:
Nix teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more primary techniques comprise any or a combination of an advanced encryption standard (AES) technique, a data encryption standard (DES) technique, and a triple data encryption standard (3 DES) technique to encrypt the one or more generated data parameters with the one or more symmetric keys (Par. [0135], Par. [0195]). Nix taught that the symmetric key encryption can be performed using AES/DES.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 6.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Rakshit/Klein and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0261415 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Lee”.
Regarding Claim 10:
Lee teaches the following limitation:
wherein the audio mode of communication configured by the one or more processors utilizes frequency shift keying (FSK) to enable the communication of the one or more encrypted data from the primary entity to the secondary entity (Par. [0025], Par. [0026], Par. [0030]). Lee teaches using audio communication as an alternative method for wireless communication using frequency shift keying.
Li/Rakshit/Klein teach using wireless communication protocols, but does not teach using audio communication. Lee however teaches that audio communication can be performed as a form of wireless data communication and has multiple advantages for user convenience such as being able to stay connected to a wireless network (Par. [0021], Par. [0022], Par. [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein with the audio communication of Lee in order to gain the predictable result of using audio communication as a possible option for determination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein and the audio communication of Lee are alternative substitutes, as they both relate to wireless data transmission, and it would have been predictable to use audio communication described by Lee as a possible mode of communication. Furthermore, such a mode of communication would present advantages such as increased user convenience.
Regarding Claim 11:
Lee teaches the following limitation:
wherein the audio mode of communication comprises an audio amplitude variation to enable the communication of the one or more encrypted data from the primary entity to the secondary entity (Par. [0025], Par. [0026], Par. [0030]). Lee teaches using audio communication as an alternative method for wireless communication using amplitude modulation.
Li/Rakshit/Klein teach using wireless communication protocols, but does not teach using audio communication. Lee however teaches that audio communication can be performed as a form of wireless data communication and has multiple advantages for user convenience such as being able to stay connected to a wireless network (Par. [0021], Par. [0022], Par. [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein with the audio communication of Lee in order to gain the predictable result of using audio communication as a possible option for determination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein and the audio communication of Lee are alternative substitutes, as they both relate to wireless data transmission, and it would have been predictable to use audio communication described by Lee as a possible mode of communication. Furthermore, such a mode of communication would present advantages such as increased user convenience.
Regarding Claim 12:
Lee teaches the following limitation:
wherein the audio mode of communication utilizes one or more frequencies to enable the communication of the one or more encrypted data from the primary entity to the secondary entity (Par. [0025], Par. [0026], Par. [0030]). Lee teaches using audio communication as an alternative method for wireless communication using frequency modulation.
Li/Rakshit/Klein teach using wireless communication protocols, but does not teach using audio communication. Lee however teaches that audio communication can be performed as a form of wireless data communication and has multiple advantages for user convenience such as being able to stay connected to a wireless network (Par. [0021], Par. [0022], Par. [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein with the audio communication of Lee in order to gain the predictable result of using audio communication as a possible option for determination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein and the audio communication of Lee are alternative substitutes, as they both relate to wireless data transmission, and it would have been predictable to use audio communication described by Lee as a possible mode of communication. Furthermore, such a mode of communication would present advantages such as increased user convenience.
Claims 26-27, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Rakshit/Klein and further in view of Savolainen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0134709 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Savolainen”.
Regarding Claim 26:
Savolainen teaches the following limitation:
wherein one or more advertising channels are associated with the Bluetooth mode of communication to enable the communication of the one or more encrypted data from the primary entity to the secondary entity (Par. [0082], Par. [0083]). Savolainen teaches that Bluetooth uses advertising channels.
Li/Rakshit/Klein teach using wireless communication protocols which includes Bluetooth, but does not explicitly teach using advertising channels. Savolainen however teaches that Bluetooth communication uses advertising channels for data communication. 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 communication system of Li/Rakshit/Klein with the Bluetooth communication of Savolainen in order to gain the predictable result of using advertising channels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein and the Bluetooth communication of Savolainen are compatible as they both relate to wireless communication, and thus it would have been predictable to use the advertising channels described as part of the Bluetooth protocol in Savolainen for data communication.
Regarding Claim 27:
Savolainen teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit a public address and a private address associated with the one or more advertising channels of the Bluetooth mode of communication (Par. [0088], Par. [0096], Par. [0110], Par. [0111]). Savolainen further teaches that Bluetooth communication further includes a public/private address as part of packet data.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 26.
Regarding Claim 30:
Savolainen teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more encrypted data is transmitted using a configurable interval ranging from 20 milliseconds to 10.24 seconds with a delay of 0 seconds to 0.625 milliseconds (Par. [0082], Par. [0083], Par. [0085]). Savolainen further teaches that an advertising interval in Bluetooth communication follows those exact timing properties as part of the Bluetooth specification.
Li/Rakshit/Klein teach using wireless communication protocols which includes Bluetooth, but does not explicitly teach using a configurable interval. Savolainen however teaches that Bluetooth communication uses advertising channels for data communication with a specific advertising 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 communication system of Li/Rakshit/Klein with the Bluetooth communication of Savolainen in order to gain the predictable result of using advertising channels with an advertising interval ranging from 20 milliseconds to 10.24 seconds with a delay of 0 seconds to 0.625 milliseconds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein and the Bluetooth communication of Savolainen are compatible as they both relate to wireless communication, and thus it would have been predictable to use the advertising channels described as part of the Bluetooth protocol in Savolainen for data communication which describe such a configurable interval.
Regarding Claim 31:
Savolainen teaches the following limitation:
wherein the primary entity and the secondary entity comprise one or more Bluetooth low energy (BLE) scanners to transmit and receive the one or more encrypted data through the one or more advertising channels (Par. [0082], Par. [0083]). Savolainen teaches Bluetooth scanners as part of Bluetooth low energy communication.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 26.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Rakshit/Klein and further in view of Hua et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0263904 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Hua”.
Regarding Claim 28:
Hua teaches the following limitation:
wherein the Bluetooth mode of communication uses a data link layer with a physical specification compliant with Bluetooth version 4.X using a low energy 1 Megabit per second physical layer (LE1M PHY) and Bluetooth version 5.X using a low energy 2 Megabit per second physical layer (Par. [0047], Par. [0050]). Hua teaches that Bluetooth communication can switch between different physical layers such as those defined in versions 4.2 and 5.0.
Li/Rakshit/Klein teach using wireless communication protocols which includes Bluetooth, but does not explicitly teach the properties of the data link layer. Hua however teaches that Bluetooth communication can use a data link layer which switches between 4.2 and 5.0. 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 communication system of Li/Rakshit/Klein with the Bluetooth communication of Hua in order to gain the predictable result of using a data link layer that uses 4.2 and 5.0 Bluetooth communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein and the Bluetooth communication of Hua are compatible as they both relate to wireless communication, and thus it would have been predictable to use the physical specifications of 4.2 and 5.0 Bluetooth described as part of the Bluetooth protocol switching in Hua for data communication.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Rakshit/Klein/Hua and further in view of Xie et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0172189 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Xie”.
Regarding Claim 29:
Xie teaches the following limitation:
wherein the data link layer comprises at least a preamble, an access address, a protocol data unit (PDU), a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), and a constant tone (CTE) (Par. [0063]).
Li/Rakshit/Klein/Hua teach using wireless communication protocols which includes Bluetooth, but does not explicitly teach what the data link layer comprises. Xie however teaches that a packet in the data link layer in Bluetooth comprises each of the claimed elements as part of the BLE protocol. 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 communication system of Li/Rakshit/Klein/Hua with the Bluetooth communication of Xie in order to gain the predictable result of the data link layer comprising each of the recited features. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein/Hua and the Bluetooth communication of Xie are compatible as they both relate to wireless communication, and thus it would have been predictable for the data link layer to comprise a preamble, access address, PDU, CRC, and CTE as part of the BLE protocol of Xie.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Rakshit/Klein and further in view of Xie.
Regarding Claim 50:
Xie teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more encrypted data comprise at least a sequence number, a device identification (ID), a user data length, user data, and a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) (Par. [0063]).
Li/Rakshit/Klein teach using wireless communication protocols which includes Bluetooth, but does not explicitly teach what the encrypted data/packets comprise. Xie however teaches that a packet in the data link layer in Bluetooth comprises elements including a cyclic redundancy check as part of the BLE protocol. 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 communication system of Li/Rakshit/Klein with the Bluetooth communication of Xie in order to gain the predictable result of the encrypted data comprising a CRC. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the mode of communication of Li/Rakshit/Klein and the Bluetooth communication of Xie are compatible as they both relate to wireless communication, and thus it would have been predictable for the data link layer to comprise a CRC as part of the BLE protocol of Xie.
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Tsurumi (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0220475 A1) – Includes methods regarding periodic SSID changing
Jiang et al. (U.S. Patent. No. 10,292,047 B1) – Includes methods regarding dynamic SSID changes for security
Sigel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0034215 A1) – Includes methods regarding dynamic SSID changes for privacy enhancement
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN V VO whose telephone number is (571)272-2505. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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.
/E.V.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2431 /SARAH SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431