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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed December 29th, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 9-10 and 15 have been amended; claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe (GB 2610792 A, “Howe”) in view of Gilson (US 20200036451 A1, “Gilson”).
Regarding claim 1, Howe discloses a system for transmitting out-of-band signals for a user device trigger, the system comprising: an out-of-band node configured to wirelessly transmit the out-of-band signals to a user device within a threshold distance of the out-of-band node; and one or more processors corresponding to the out-of-band node, the one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising: transmitting an out-of-band signal that includes encoded data for receipt by the user device within the threshold distance of the out-of-band node, wherein upon receipt by the user device, the encoded data triggers the user device to initiate an action ([pg. 1, lines 40]-[pg.2, line 20] transmitting device transmits an audio signal to a device in proximity of a receiving audio device encoded with data code that is an executable computer program which triggers the receiving device to execute a software update); receiving an indication that the user device has received the out-of-band signal ([pg. 5, lines 32-37], receiving device may be configured to transmit information back to the transmitting device in response to the end of a transmission from the transmitting device);
Howe may not explicitly teach transmitting information associated with the user device receiving the out-of-band signal.
Gilson teaches transmitting information associated with the user device receiving the out-of-band signal ([0089] transmitted codes may be assigned different identifiers. For example, a first code transmitted to a first device may include a first participant identifier for identifying the mobile device of the first participant).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic signal transmission, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Howe, to include the device information transmission of Gilson with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of individually addressing devices based on participant identifiers [0089].
Regarding claim 5, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the system of claim 1. Howe further teaches wherein the out-of-band signal is an ultrasonic signal ([pg. 9, lines 38-40], audio signal is a pulse modulated ultrasonic carrier wave).
Regarding claim 6, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the system of claim 1. Gilson further teaches transmitting a second out-of-band signal that includes a second set of encoded data for receipt by the user device within the threshold distance of the out-of-band node, wherein upon receipt by the user device, the second set of encoded data triggers the user device to initiate a second action that is different from the action ([0026], push notification server may generate push notifications to deliver data and/or commands to devices within the premises such as to load movies, songs, television programs, web pages, articles, news, images, files, etc.)(It is the examiner’s interpretation that Gilson teaches several different commands with different actions to be initiated at the user device).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons
Regarding claim 14, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the method of claim 9. Gilson further teaches providing, via an application downloaded onto the first user device, listening instructions to the first user device for receiving the out-of-band signal; generating the first set of encoded data for a plurality of out-of-band nodes to transmit the out-of-band signal that includes the first set of encoded data; and providing the first set of encoded data to the plurality of out-of-band nodes ([0098], a software application for controlling members of an ad hoc group and its management may be installed on devices. Application can enable an individual to select one or more user preferences to manage temporary pairing with other devices after receiving a vibration signal sent from other nearby devices).
Regarding claim 16, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the method of claim 9. Gilson further teaches wherein the first set of operational instructions cause the first user device to launch a webpage corresponding to an event associated with a time that the first user device received the out-of-band signal and a location in which the first user device received the out-of-band signal ([0026], push notification server may generate push notifications to deliver data or commands to various premises such as content web pages).
Regarding claim 17, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the method of claim 9. Howe further teaches receiving, over the network from a plurality of user devices, an indication that each of the plurality of user devices has received the out-of-band signal from at least one of the plurality of out-of-band nodes([pg. 5, lines 32-37], receiving device may be configured to transmit information back to the transmitting device in response to the end of a transmission from the transmitting device);
Gilson further teaches transmitting the first set of operational instructions to a plurality of out-of-band nodes, each of the plurality of out-of-band nodes located within a threshold distance from at least one other of the plurality of out-of-band nodes; providing each of the plurality of user devices, over the network, the first set of operational instructions ([0026], push notification server may provide content to user devices via the content server triggering such actions as video on demand movies, television programs, news, web pages, text listings, etc.); determining a user device traffic volume for a location in which the plurality of out-of-band nodes are located; and adjusting a frequency at which each of the plurality of out-of-band nodes are transmitting the out-of-band signal based on the user device traffic volume ([0034]-[0035], Vibrations signals, which may include patterns of vibration pulses that have varying pulse durations, frequencies, and/or amplitudes, may be used to communicate ad hoc group identifiers, mobile device identifiers, and other information between mobile devices)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the vibration patterns from various devices would be recognized and thus give a determination of traffic volume in an area and then in order to communicate with a particular device, a frequency would need to be adjusted to that devices vibrational pattern).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18. Gilson further teaches wherein triggering the action includes launching an application downloaded on the user device, the application having access to one or more light emitting components of the user device, wherein the information received over the network includes timing and duration instructions for the user device to emit light from the one or more light emitting components, and wherein the method further comprises: emitting, via the one or more light emitting components, light based on the timing and duration instructions received over the network ([0081] notification time windows may be provided by an ad hoc group server or by schedule data in an application based on location data. Notification time windows may be set so the notification time periods occur at the same time and cease at the same time)([0064], notifications may use on or more separate light sources such as an LED).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Gilson and Niewczas et al. (US 20160204879 A1, “Niewczas”).
Regarding claim 2, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the system of claim 1. Howe, as modified in view of Gilson may not explicitly teach wherein the system further comprises a plurality of out-of-band nodes each within a second threshold distance from at least one other out-of-band node of the plurality of out-of-band nodes, the plurality of out-of-band nodes including the out-of-band node, wherein each of the plurality of out-of-band nodes are configured to wirelessly transmit the out-of-band signal, including the encoded data, to the user device when the user device is within the threshold distance of a respective out-of-band node of the plurality of out-of-band nodes.
Niewczas teaches wherein the system further comprises a plurality of out-of-band nodes each within a second threshold distance from at least one other out-of-band node of the plurality of out-of-band nodes, the plurality of out-of-band nodes including the out-of-band node, wherein each of the plurality of out-of-band nodes are configured to wirelessly transmit the out-of-band signal, including the encoded data, to the user device when the user device is within the threshold distance of a respective out-of-band node of the plurality of out-of-band nodes ([0039], beacon devices wirelessly transmit messages to alert an application on the mobile phone of a user)([0121] multiple beacons may be placed in a given region)([0043] when a user device is within range of the beacon device, an application on the mobile phone of a user may passively receive the beacon message).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of out-of-band signaling, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Howe, as modified in view of Gilson, to include the threshold distance signaling of Niewczas with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of only prompting action triggers when the user device is within a given region [0043].
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Gilson, Niewczas, and Petersen (US 20210274333 A1, “Petersen”).
Regarding claim 3, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson and Niewczas teaches the system of claim 2. Niewczas further teaches wherein a second out-of-band node of the plurality of out-of-band nodes receives an indication that the user device has received the out-of-band signal, and wherein the second out-of-band node transmits the information, including a distance between the second out-of-band node and the user device ([0062], based on the RSSI, application can infer a distance from the beacon device along, and can additionally use transmission and receipt timestamps to corroborate distance measurements)
Howe, as modified in view of Gilson and Niewczas may not explicitly teach transmitting a version identifier of a software program downloaded on the user device, to a server.
Petersen teaches teach transmitting a version identifier of a software program downloaded on the user device, to a server (Implicit, [0134], provisioning server maintains for each client device, provisioning information such as installation status, version, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of out-of-band signaling, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Howe, as modified in view of Gilson and Niewczas, to include the version identifier transmission of Peteren with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of only ensuring the server has up to date information regarding the present software version provisioned on each client device [0134].
Regarding claim 4, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson, Niewczas, and Petersen teaches the system of claim 3. Howe further teaches wherein the encoded data triggers the user device to initiate the action of updating the software program based on the version identifier([pg. 1, lines 40]-[pg.2, line 20] transmitting device transmits an audio signal to a device in proximity of a receiving audio device encoded with data code that is an executable computer program which triggers the receiving device to execute a software update).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Gilson and Bloechl et al. (US 20190159109 A1, “Bloechl”).
Regarding claim 7, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the system of claim 1. Howe, as modified in view of Gilson may not explicitly teach the operations further comprising: receiving, from the user device, a signal strength corresponding to the out-of-band signal transmitted by the out-of-band node; determining a location of the user device at receipt of the out-of-band signal based on the indication that the user device has received the out-of-band signal; and adjusting the signal strength for transmitting the out-of-band signals based on the location of the user device and the signal strength.
Bloechl teaches receiving, from the user device, a signal strength corresponding to the out-of-band signal transmitted by the out-of-band node; determining a location of the user device at receipt of the out-of-band signal based on the indication that the user device has received the out-of-band signal; and adjusting the signal strength for transmitting the out-of-band signals based on the location of the user device and the signal strength([0060] end node detect the received signal strength from messages broadcast from an access point and determine proximity in order to establish connections)([0069] signal strength of broadcast messages may be adjusted based on an adjustment factor to confer exclusive selection thereof by the end node).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of out-of-band signaling, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Howe, as modified in view of Gilson, to include the received signal strength analysis of Bloechl with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining proximity in order to facilitate establishing wireless connections [0060].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Gilson, Bloechl, and Subramanian et al. (US 20130210460 A1, “Subramanian”).
Regarding claim 8, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson and Bloechl teaches the system of claim 7, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson and Bloechl may not explicitly teach the operations further comprising: determining an anticipated user device traffic volume within a radius of the out-of-band node, wherein the radius is a greater distance from the out-of-band node than the threshold distance; and adjusting a periodicity for transmitting the out-of-band signals based on the anticipated user device traffic volume.
Subramanian teaches determining an anticipated user device traffic volume within a radius of the out-of-band node, wherein the radius is a greater distance from the out-of-band node than the threshold distance; and adjusting a periodicity for transmitting the out-of-band signals based on the anticipated user device traffic volume ([0054], communications device controls a safety message periodicity such as increasing the periodicity when the communications device is at a location with higher traffic, or decreasing the periodicity in an environment with lower traffic).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of out-of-band signaling, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Howe, as modified in view of Gilson and Bloechl, to include the signal periodicity adjustment of Subramanian with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of ensuring a broadcast message is received by user devices regardless of traffic volume [0054].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Gilson and Xiong et al. (US 20190178976 A1, “Xiong”).
Regarding claim 10, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the method of claim 9. Howe further teaches an indication that the second user device has received the second out-of-band signal having the second set of encoded data([pg. 5, lines 32-37], receiving device may be configured to transmit information back to the transmitting device in response to the end of a transmission from the transmitting device)
Gilson further teaches generating a second set of operational instructions to transmit to a plurality user devices, the second set of operational instructions to be transmitted based on the one or more user devices receiving a second out-of-band signal having a second set of encoded data that triggers the one or more user devices to initiate a second action that is different from the first action, receiving, over the network from a second user device of the plurality of user devices ([0026], push notification server may provide content to user devices via the content server triggering such actions as video on demand movies, television programs, news, web pages, text listings, etc.)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the various triggers incorporate differing sets of operational instructions transmitted to the user device); and providing the second user device, over the network, the second set of operational instructions([0026], push notification server may provide content to user devices via the content server triggering such actions as video on demand movies, television programs, news, web pages, text listings, etc.).
Howe, as modified in view of Gilson may not explicitly teach the out-of-band signal and the second out-of-band signal each having different frequency bands;
Xiong teaches the out-of-band signal and the second out-of-band signal each having different frequency bands ([0041] each out of band node may transmit signals on a different frequency band);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of out-of-band signaling, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Howe, as modified in view of Gilson, to include the different frequency band utilization of Xiong with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of differentiating transmitted signals [0041].
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Gilson and Monegan (US 20230245558 A1, “Monegan”).
Regarding claim 11, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the method of claim 9. Howe, as modified in view of Gilson may not explicitly teach wherein the first set of operational instructions cause the first user device to display an emergency notification based on a location of the first user device upon receiving the out-of-band signal.
Monegan teaches the first set of operational instructions cause the first user device to display an emergency notification based on a location of the first user device upon receiving the out-of-band signal ([0053], application of the user’s vehicle can receive an emergency notification indicating the direction and distance of an approaching emergency vehicle for display)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of out-of-band signaling, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Howe, as modified in view of Gilson, to include the emergency notification of Monegan with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of alerting a user of emergency services in their vicinity [0053].
Regarding claim 15, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the method of claim 9. Howe, as modified in view of Gilson may not explicitly teach further comprising providing, via an application, a decryption key to the user device for decrypting the first set of encoded data, and wherein the indication that the first user device has received the out-of-band signal includes receiving the decrypted data.
Monegan teaches providing, via an application, a decryption key to the user device for decrypting the first set of encoded data, and wherein the indication that the first user device has received the out-of-band signal includes receiving the decrypted data (Implicit, [0135], encryption module may provide a private key to be used by the transport to encrypt/decrypt communications regarding any updates).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of out-of-band signaling, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Howe, as modified in view of Gilson, to include the signal decryption of Monegan with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of ensuring any updates are received privately by user in a secure manner [0135].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Gilson and Lavery (US 9363645 B2, “Lavery”).
Regarding claim 12, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the method of claim 9. Howe, as modified in view of Gilson may not explicitly teach receiving, over the network from the first user device, a signal strength of the out-of-band signal that the first user device received from a first out-of-band node transmitting the out-of-band signal; determining the signal strength is below a threshold; and instructing the first out-of-band node to increase a transmission power corresponding to the out-of-band signal.
Lavery teaches receiving, over the network from the first user device, a signal strength of the out-of-band signal that the first user device received from a first out-of-band node transmitting the out-of-band signal; determining the signal strength is below a threshold; and instructing the first out-of-band node to increase a transmission power corresponding to the out-of-band signal ([column 8, 1-23], in areas where there are multiple obstacles which may result in the detection level being below a threshold, the communication device may increase the SPL of the signal from the emitter in order to trigger the detection threshold to be reached).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of out-of-band signaling, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Howe, as modified in view of Gilson, to include the signal transmission power adjustment of Lavery with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving successful signal reception regardless of obstacles/traffic present in the area [column 8, 1-23].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Gilson and Subramanian.
Regarding claim 13, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the method of claim 9. Howe, as modified in view of Gilson may not explicitly teach determining a user device traffic volume within a radius of a first out-of-band node transmitting the out-of-band signal is above a threshold; and instructing the first out-of-band node to increase a periodicity for transmitting the out-of-band signal based on the user device traffic volume being above the threshold.
Subramanian teaches determining a user device traffic volume within a radius of a first out-of-band node transmitting the out-of-band signal is above a threshold; and instructing the first out-of-band node to increase a periodicity for transmitting the out-of-band signal based on the user device traffic volume being above the threshold ([0054], communications device controls a safety message periodicity such as increasing the periodicity when the communications device is at a location with higher traffic, or decreasing the periodicity in an environment with lower traffic).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of out-of-band signaling, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Howe, as modified in view of Gilson, to include the signal periodicity adjustment of Subramanian with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of ensuring a broadcast message is received by user devices regardless of traffic volume [0054].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe in view of Gilson and Ogaz (US 20170213459 A1, “Ogaz”).
Regarding claim 19, Howe, as modified in view of Gilson teaches the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18. Howe, as modified in view of Gilson may not explicitly teach wherein triggering the action includes launching an application downloaded on the user device, the application corresponding to a telecommunications service provider, and wherein the method further comprises: transmitting, over the network and based on triggering the action, a user device identifier corresponding to the user device over the network; transmitting, over the network and based on triggering the action, cache information corresponding to the application and performance diagnostics information; and receiving the information over the network to update a telecommunications service provided by the telecommunications service provider based on transmitting the user device identifier, the cache information, and the performance diagnostics information.
Ogaz teaches wherein triggering the action includes launching an application downloaded on the user device, the application corresponding to a telecommunications service provider, and wherein the method further comprises: transmitting, over the network and based on triggering the action, a user device identifier corresponding to the user device over the network; transmitting, over the network and based on triggering the action, cache information corresponding to the application and performance diagnostics information; and receiving the information over the network to update a telecommunications service provided by the telecommunications service provider based on transmitting the user device identifier, the cache information, and the performance diagnostics information ([0041]-[0043], diagnostic communications module may be utilized by a third party in communication with diagnostic information of the user device. Diagnostic information may include sensor data , component status, system warnings)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the third party in communication with the diagnostic communications module may be a telecommunications service provider)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of out-of-band signaling, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the CRM of Howe, as modified in view of Gilson, to include the diagnostic performance information transmission of Ogaz with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing information regarding sensor, component, or software information relevant to the device health [0041]-[0043].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 1-4 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that the combination of Howe and Gilson fails to teach the limitations of claim 1 for the following reasons:
Neither Howe, nor Gilson teaches the limitations regarding transmitting an out-of-band encoded signal that triggers a user device to initiate an action, receiving a confirmation that the user device has received the out-of-band-signal and providing, the first user device, over the network, the first set of operational instructions
Howe does not teach an out-of-band signal instructs the receiving device to initiate a state change prior to a subsequent set of instructions initiates the action
Howe and Gilson are directed towards different architectures and have different principals of operation
Howe nor Gilson teaches the limitations regarding the transmitting and receiving step, as well as providing the operational instructions over the network
With respect to (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees that Howe, as modified in view of Gilson fails to teach the limitations regarding transmitting an out-of-band encoded signal that triggers a user device to initiate an action, receiving a confirmation that the user device has received the out-of-band-signal. Howe at [pg. 1, line 40]-[pg. 2, line 20] discloses a process in which a transmitting device transmits an audio signal to a device within a proximity threshold, the audio signal being encoded with data that causes a receiving device to execute a software code (or initiate an action). Howe at [pg. 5, lines 32-37] further discloses that the receiving device may be configured to transmit information back to the transmitting device in response to the end of a transmission from the transmitting device. It is the examiner’s interpretation that in order for the receiving device to know when the end of the transmitting device’s transmission occurs, it must be the device that actually receives the transmission, and that the response generated by the receiving device is implicitly a type of confirmation. With respect to the limitation “providing, the first user device, over the network, the first set of operation instructions”, the claim limitations, as currently drafted do not define “the network” to a level that precludes Howe from reading upon the claim. For example, the transmission and reception devices of Howe may be interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to be an acoustic device network, and therefore the audio transmissions occur over a network. Additionally, with respect to the limitation of claim 18 requiring the triggering to occur without using a telecommunication service provided by a telecommunication service provider, Howe’s transmission and reception utilize audio signals as opposed to a cellular network, therefore it is the examiner’s interpretation that Howe does not initiate the triggering via a telecommunication service provided by a telecommunication provider.
With respect to (2), the examiner respectfully disagrees that Howe fails to teach these limitations. Howe at Fig. 3 illustrates a flow diagram of the out-of-band signaling process in which the receiving device identifies the start of the transmitted encoded message, then decodes the incoming message, identifies the end of the encoded message, interprets the message as a software update process and creates a new executable software program file, and finally executes the new software program and performs the instructions encoded within. It is the examiner’s interpretation that
With respect to (3), the examiner respectfully disagrees that Gilson would alter the principle of operation of Howe due to differing architectures. Gilson is relied upon to teach the limitation “transmitting information associated with the user device receiving the out-of-band signal) and does so at [0089], which states that vibration signals generate by members of an ad hoc group may indicate their presence via an assigned code. It is the examiner’s interpretation that this code (information associated with a user device) is encoded in the transmitted vibrational signals (audio signal). Howe is directed towards utilizing an out-of-band signal to transmit an ultrasonic signal encoded with a software update to a receiving device. It is the examiner’s interpretation that as both Howe and Gilson teach ultrasonic communications between user devices, there would be no requirement to change the principle of operation of either Howe or Gilson.
With respect to (4) the examiner respectfully disagrees that neither Howe nor Gilson teach these limitations. As noted in (1) Howe at [pg. 1, line 40]-[pg. 2, line 20] discloses a process in which a transmitting device transmits an audio signal to a device within a proximity threshold, the audio signal being encoded with data that causes a receiving device to execute a software code (or initiate an action). Howe further discloses at [pg. 5, lines 32-37] that the receiving device may be configured to transmit information back to the transmitting device in response to the end of a transmission from the transmitting device. It is the examiner’s interpretation that these teachings satisfy the transmitting and receiving steps required by the claim limitations. Further with respect to the limitation “providing, the first user device, over the network, the first set of operation instructions”, the claim limitations, as currently drafted do not define “the network” to a level that precludes Howe from reading upon the claim. For example, the transmission and reception devices of Howe may be interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to be an acoustic device network, and therefore the audio transmissions occur over a network. Therefore the rejection of claim 1 is maintained under 35 U.S.C. 103.
On pg. 4-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claims 1, 9, and 18, dependent claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 18, above, the rejections are maintained are therefore so are the rejections of claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-20.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Hedley et al. (US 20110188389 A1, “Hedley”) which discloses a wireless localization system utilizing ultrasonic transmissions
Shi et al. (US 20210410066 A1, “Shi”) which discloses an information transmission method/device/system which uses ultrasonic transmissions
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 CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645