DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Amendment filed on December 12, 2025, in which claims 1, 4-6, 14, 16, 19 and 26 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-26 remain pending for examination.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-26 are pending, of which claims 1-7 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 and 14-19 in the reply filed on April 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
5. Claims 8-13 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 21, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3-7 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Aaron Ta-Tsung Leu (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0097799 A1), hereinafter “Leu” in view of Lindner et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0315108 A1), hereinafter “Lindner”.
Regarding claim 1, Leu discloses a method for facilitating communications between two or more devices via a severable communications system, wherein the severable communications system provides for communications between devices using a device identifier that can be removed after communications, comprising: initiating, via a first user interface of a first device (wherein when a user of a communications device desires to transfer information (such as a monetary amount, an image, text, other data, etc.) to another of a plurality of communications devices in a peer group, the user swipes on a touchscreen towards an assigned section of the touchscreen assigned to the particular communications device. See also, in particular, FIG. 2, illustrating a touchscreen of a user interface 208, referred to by Leu as touchscreen 208 for simplicity and shown in greater detail in FIG. 3) (Leu, FIGS. 2 and 3, paragraphs [0017]), a two-way communication between the first device and a second device (wherein upon detecting the swipe, and determining that the swipe was towards the assigned section, the communications device initiates a transfer of the information (e.g., information entered into or arrived at on the touchscreen or determined from the swipe itself, such as a number of fingers involved in the swipe) to the target communications device) (Leu, paragraph [0017]), wherein the two-way communication is initiated by a first user of the first device and directed to a second user of the second device (again, swipe/communication of information is triggered by user of first device toward user of second device in peer-to-peer session) (Leu, paragraphs [0017] and [0023]); determining a first identifier, stored by the severable communications system, associated with the first device (wherein as further illustrated in FIG. 3, each section 302a, 302c may include one or more identifiers for the mobile communications devices 102a, 102c, respectively - (See also FIG. 1) - to which the assigned sections correspond. For example, assigned section 302a may have a name, number, image, or some combination of the above displayed somewhere in the assigned section 302a that identifies the mobile communications device 102a (and/or the user of the mobile communications device 102a) and likewise with respect to assigned section 302c for mobile communications device 102c) (Leu, FIGS. 1 and 3, paragraph [0058]); determining a second identifier, stored by the severable communications system, associated with the second device (again, each of assigned sections 302a and 302c include one or more identifiers for the mobile communications devices 102a, 102c, respectively) (Leu, FIGS. 1 and 3, paragraph [0058]); and establishing, via the severable communications system, a communication channel based on the first identifier and the second identifier (again, mobile communications device 102a establishing a peer group and a peer-to-peer (P2P) session 104 with one or both of the mobile communications devices 102b and 102c. The mobile communications devices 102a/102b/102c may all establish the same types of P2P sessions 104 with each other (e.g., all using the same linking technology/protocols), or alternatively may use a variety of technologies/protocols in order to establish the P2P sessions 104 in the communications environment 100) (Leu, FIG. 1, paragraphs [0023] and [0024]), wherein at least one of the first device and the second device are identified to the severable communications system by a device-specific identifier supplied by a device operating system (wherein e.g., the mobile communications device 102a may send a message to the network 108, to which the mobile communications device 102a is connected (e.g., a WiFi network), intended to reach the mobile communications device 102b. The message may include a unique identifier or code that the mobile communications device 102b may use to initiate the peer-to-peer session 104 between the two mobile communications devices. For example, the mobile communications device 102a in FIG. 1 may designate itself as a host of a group (ad-hoc or otherwise), or be designated by another mobile communications device 102 or network 108 element as a host. As host, the mobile communications device 102a may provide a unique PIN/identifier or other code (e.g., a QR code) via email, messaging, image presentation, NFC, or other communication type to one or more other mobile communications devices 102, such as mobile communications device 102b) (Leu, paragraphs [0027] and [0028]). Leu does not explicitly disclose wherein the two-way communication is initiated by a first user of the first device, using a physical gesture of the first device directed to a second user of the second device. However in an analogous art, Lindner discloses wherein a two-way communication is initiated by a first user of a first device, using a physical gesture of the first device directed to a second user of a second device (wherein with reference to FIG. 12, Lindner teaches that various embodiments include methods and systems of communicating using a first mobile device, and that include establishing a new communication channel with at least one other (i.e., second) mobile device in response to a detected motion of the first device. In particular, Lindner teaches that at block 1202 of embodiment method 1200 (See FIG. 12), a first mobile device 102, may detect a motion of the device corresponding to a particular user action. The detected motion may be any movement or change in position or orientation of the device that may be correlated to a particular action by the user. For example, the detected motion may be any of the motions schematically illustrated in FIG. 2, such as the motion of the user bringing the device towards or away from his/her ear (See also FIG. 2). The detected motion may also be a “flicking” motion, a shaking motion, etc. In some embodiments, the detected motion may be the rotation of the device handset, such as the user rotating the handset by 90 degrees, by 180 degrees., or by any arbitrary amount. Lindner further teaches that the mobile device 102 may be configured with accelerometers and gyroscopes, as are common in many smartphones, and the processor may be configured to monitor such sensors in block 1202 to determine when such sensor outputs match thresholds and/or patterns in memory correlated to particular actions) (Lindner, FIGS. 2 and 12, paragraph [0105] and [0106]). Leu and Lindner are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, providing transfer of different types of information to other communications devices based on one or more user gestures or actions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Leu and Lindner before him or her, to modify the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu to include the additional limitation of wherein a two-way communication is initiated by a first user of a first device, using a physical gesture of the first device directed to a second user of a second device, as disclosed in Lindner, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a peer-to-peer network exchange having the added benefit of enabling a first user of a first mobile device to initiate communication with a second user of a second mobile device based on detected motion, thereby adding to the types of gestures available to the user, and greatly increasing user experience (See Lindner, paragraph [0107]). This method of improving the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lindner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Leu with Lindner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claim 19 is directed to a “computer-readable medium carrying instructions, which when executed by at least one processor of a computer system, causes the computer system to carry out the method of claim 1,” and does not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
In addition, claim 14 is directed to “non-transitory computer-readable media for interacting between users of mobile devices, the non-transitory computer-readable media storing program instructions for causing a computer to perform” limitations substantially as recited in “method” claim 1, albeit reciting an “anonymizing system” in lieu of a “severable communications system,” and does not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, as Leu discloses such “non-transitory computer-readable media” (wherein memory 204 includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium) (Leu, paragraph [0036]), claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
As to claim 3, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the severable communications system is one or more of a remote server, a peer-to-peer network, and/or a system with distributed data records (again, establishing the same types of P2P sessions 104 with each other (e.g., all using the same linking technology/protocols), or alternatively, using a variety of technologies/protocols in order to establish the P2P sessions 104 in the communications environment 100) (Leu, paragraph [0024]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: initiating the two-way communication at the first device using the physical gesture of the first device (wherein again, at block 1202 of embodiment method 1200 (See FIG. 12), a first mobile device 102, may detect a motion of the device corresponding to a particular user action. The detected motion may be any movement or change in position or orientation of the device that may be correlated to a particular action by the user, the devices may initially not be communicating at all, and the first mobile device may establish a communication channel (e.g., initiate a phone/video call) with the at least one second mobile device in response to the detected motion) (Lindner, FIG. 12, paragraphs [0105] and [0107]); determining a geographic location for the two-way communication based on a location of the first device (wherein the mobile communications devices 102a/102b/102c may be location-aware, e.g., by including circuitry and/or software to enable the mobile communications devices 102a/102b/102c to determine their own locations. In addition, a location determination system 212 may include one or more transceivers to enable communication with a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) 110 illustrated in FIG. 1. The mobile communications devices 102a/102b/102c may further include assisted-GPS for enhanced signal acquisition/location quality) (Leu, FIGS. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0021] and [0041]); providing the severable communications system and/or the second device with a desired two-way communication request, wherein the desired two-way communication request comprises an indication of the physical gesture (wherein again, the mobile device 102 may be configured with accelerometers and gyroscopes, as are common in many smartphones, and the processor may be configured to monitor such sensors in block 1202 to determine when such sensor outputs match thresholds and/or patterns in memory correlated to particular actions. In an embodiment, Lindner teaches that mobile device motion measurements correlated to particular user actions may be defined by the user, such as via a menu interface and/or a training routine. Thus, operations that are encompassed in block 1202 (as well as blocks 1302, 1402, 1502, 1602 and 1610 discussed below) may include continuously monitoring accelerometer, gyroscope and/or other motion sensors when in an active state, and comparing sensor data received from such sensors within a sampling interval to patterns of motion sensor data stored in memory correlated to particular actions or commands. When a match is detected, the mobile device processor may initiate the action correlated to the matched pattern) (Lindner, FIG. 12, paragraph [0106]); and searching, at the severable communications system, for a membership record associated with the first user (wherein at decision block 714 of FIG. 7, the mobile communications device 102 determines whether there have been any relative changes between the mobile communications device 102 and any of the paired devices. In making this determination, the mobile communications device 102 uses the location information received at block 710 and determined at block 712. For example, the mobile communications device 102 may compare the location information of the mobile communications device 102 against a previous location recorded for the mobile communications device 102 to identify any change, and/or location information of the peer devices against previously stored location information for those devices, and/or location information of the mobile communications device 102 against the location information of the peer devices) (Leu, FIG. 7, paragraph [0095]). As discussed and shown above, Leu and Lindner are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, providing transfer of different types of information to other communications devices based on one or more user gestures or actions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Leu and Lindner before him or her, to modify the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu to include the additional limitations of initiating the two-way communication at the first device using the physical gesture of the first device, and providing the severable communications system and/or the second device with a desired two-way communication request, wherein the desired two-way communication request comprises an indication of the physical gesture, as disclosed in Lindner, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a peer-to-peer network exchange having the added benefit of enabling a first user of a first mobile device to initiate communication with a second user of a second mobile device based on detected motion, thereby adding to the types of gestures available to the user, and greatly increasing user experience (See Lindner, paragraph [0107]). This method of improving the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lindner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Leu with Lindner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: determining an orientation of the physical gesture of the first device (wherein again, Lindner teaches that the detected motion may be any movement or change in position or orientation of the device that may be correlated to a particular action by the user, and the mobile device 102 may be configured with accelerometers and gyroscopes, as are common in many smartphones, and the processor may be configured to monitor such sensors in block 1202 to determine when such sensor outputs match thresholds and/or patterns in memory correlated to particular actions. In general, Lindner teaches that any suitable system or technique for detecting motion, position and/or orientation of a handset, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes, or other sensors, which can be correlated to a particular action of a user may be utilized) (Lindner, paragraphs [0036], [0105] and [0106]); and deriving a gesture area based on the orientation (wherein again, the change in position or orientation of the device is correlated to a particular action by the user, such as those schematically illustrated in FIG. 2, including the motion of the user bringing the device towards or away from his/her ear, a “flicking” motion, a shaking motion, etc.) (Lindner, FIG. 2, paragraph [0105]). Again, Leu and Lindner are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, providing transfer of different types of information to other communications devices based on one or more user gestures or actions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Leu and Lindner before him or her, to modify the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu to include the additional limitations of determining an orientation of the physical gesture of the first device, and deriving a gesture area based on the orientation, as disclosed in Lindner, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a peer-to-peer network exchange having the added benefit of added privacy, particularly by enabling the mobile device 102 to transition from a public mode of operation (e.g., half-duplex in speakerphone mode) to a private mode of operation (e.g., full duplex earpiece mode or traditional cellphone mode), based on the detected motion (See Lindner, paragraph [0037]). This method of improving the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lindner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Leu with Lindner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the physical gesture comprises a movement of the first device in a forward arcing movement (again, the rotation of the device) (Lindner, paragraphs [0044] and [0105]), wherein the forward arcing movement defines the orientation and an initial size of the gesture area (again, defined by a degree of rotation (i.e., 90 degrees, 180 degrees, etc.), in accordance with matched thresholds and/or patterns stored in memory correlated to particular actions) (Lindner, paragraphs [0105] and [0106]). Again, Leu and Lindner are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, providing transfer of different types of information to other communications devices based on one or more user gestures or actions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Leu and Lindner before him or her, to modify the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu to include the additional limitations of wherein the physical gesture comprises a movement of the first device in a forward arcing movement, wherein the forward arcing movement defines the orientation and an initial size of the gesture area, as disclosed in Lindner, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a peer-to-peer network exchange having the added benefit of distinguishing between different rotations (e.g., quarter rotation, to full one hundred eighty degree rotation), etc., thereby further adding to the types of movements potentially stored and made available to the user, and by extension, the number of actions made available (See Lindner, paragraph [0105]). This method of improving the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lindner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Leu with Lindner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the gesture area is used to determine which other devices to consider as the second device based on which devices are determined to be within the gesture area (wherein Lindner further teaches that there are various ways in which the first mobile device may extrapolate the identity of one or more second mobile devices with which the user intends to connect to from the user interface context presented to the user. In various embodiments, the first mobile device may identify at least one second mobile device when, e.g., one or more contacts associated with another mobile device is highlighted or selected on the user interface. In embodiments, the first mobile device may identify at least one second mobile device when a conversation window is displayed that implies that the user is in conversation with one contact or with more than one contact (i.e., a group of contacts). In embodiments, the conversation window may be a means to identify at least one other device based on a conversation window being displayed on the screen, where the conversation window may be a scrollable region of the display that contains an ongoing conversation with another user. If the user of the first mobile device 102 has a conversation window on screen when the motion is detected (block 1402), then the first device may infer that a new communication channel should be initiated with at least one second mobile device associated with the user or users represented in the conversation window) (Lindner, paragraphs [0114]). Again, Leu and Lindner are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, providing transfer of different types of information to other communications devices based on one or more user gestures or actions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Leu and Lindner before him or her, to modify the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu to include the additional limitation of wherein the gesture area is used to determine which other devices to consider as the second device based on which devices are determined to be within the gesture area, as disclosed in Lindner, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a peer-to-peer network exchange having the added benefit of giving the user greater control over who to select to connect with, based on the user interface and detected motion (See Lindner, paragraph [0114]). This method of improving the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lindner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Leu with Lindner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claims 15-18 are directed to “non-transitory computer-readable media” claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “method” claims 3-6, respectively, albeit reciting an “anonymizing system” in lieu of a “severable communications system,” and do not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second identifier is provided to the severable communications system by the first user device, based on a direct interaction between the first user device and the second user device (wherein each of the mobile communications devices 102 provide identifiers, which may be may be generated by the mobile communications device 102, or may be received from the other peer devices in the group) (Leu, FIG. 3, paragraph [0058]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second user identifier is provided by the second user device to the severable communications system (wherein again, each of the mobile communications devices 102 provide identifiers, which may be may be generated by the mobile communications device 102, or may be received from the other peer devices in the group) (Leu, FIG. 3, paragraph [0058]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first user device may provide authorized communication types for communications with a second device, based on the second identifier (wherein information may include an amount of money, an amount of virtual currency, wagers, tips, orders, images, videos, text messages, etc.) (Leu, paragraph [0109]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the two-way communication is initiated by a first user of the first device displaying an optical code in a format that is readable by the second user device for use in connecting with the severable communications system (again, the QR code) (Leu, paragraphs [0027] and [0028]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the optical code is a QR code that encodes (1) a URL pointing to the severable communication system, and (2) a temporary identifier of the first user device (again, the QR code) (Leu, paragraphs [0027] and [0028]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, via the first user interface of the first device, a request to sever the communication channel (at least impliedly, as devices may disappear and reappear in touchscreen 208, and assigned sections 302a and 302c (See again, FIG. 3) may be dynamic, reflecting the geographic locations of mobile communications devices 102) (Leu, FIG. 3, paragraphs [0056] and [0057]); and retaining the first identifier in the severable communications system, thereby allowing reinitiation of communication (wherein again, the mobile communications devices 102 may be removed from one location and reproduced in a new location as needed, reflecting the dynamic nature of sections 302a and 302c, and to reflect where the devices stand in relation to each other geographically) (Leu, FIG. 3, paragraphs [0056] and [0057]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 4, wherein a physical gesture is represented in a data structure by one or more of a single point, a latitude and longitude, a geographic coordinate system, a polygon, a polyhedron, and/or another 3D shape (wherein again, the swipe interpretation system 216 may compare the determined direction of the swipe with the location, on the touchscreen, of the different assigned sections (assigned to the different entities in the group). The swipe interpretation system 216 may then estimate a further track of the detected swipe based on the determined direction of the swipe to determine whether it would have intercepted any point of any of the sections of the touchscreen. As another example, the swipe may end over some assigned section, in which case the swipe interpretation system 216 determines that the swipe physically ended on a point of an assigned section of the touchscreen. Examiner notes the language recited, particularly “a physical gesture,” (as opposed to “the physical gesture”) and thus such a gesture is not necessarily the same gesture as that claimed in claims 1 or 4, namely the “physical gesture of the first device”) (Leu, paragraph [0045]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 26.
10. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu-Lindner in view of BAEZ et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0243569 A1), hereinafter “BAEZ”.
Regarding claim 2, Leu-Lindner discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, via the first user interface of the first device, a request to sever the communication channel; and removing the first identifier from the severable communications system, thereby removing access to the communication channel from the second device. However in an analogous art, BAEZ discloses receiving, via a first user interface of a first device, a request to sever a communication channel (wherein at block 412 of FIG. 4, BAEZ discloses that a processing circuitry (such as a processor 202 of a group-based communication server 109 described in connection with FIGS. 1 and 2) may cause rendering, on a group-based communication interface, a first electronic indication associated with a first group-based communication channel based at least in part on the at least one communication barrier. BAEZ teaches that in some examples, the first electronic indication may indicate a recommended disassociation between the first group-based communication channel and the second workspace identifier. In some examples, the first electronic indication may be in the form of an electronic message. For example, the processing circuitry may cause rendering of an electronic message on the group-based communication interface that may indicate the first group-based communication channel is disassociated from the second workspace identifier. In this example, the processing circuitry may remove user identifiers associated with the second workspace identifier from the first group-based communication channel (including the second user identifier). As such, the remaining members of the first group-based communication channel may be only associated with the first workspace identifier, and the communication barrier of the communication separation settings set may be implemented) (BAEZ, FIGS. 1, 2 and 4, paragraphs [0143]-[0144]); and removing a first identifier from a severable communications system, thereby removing access to the communication channel from a second device (again, the processing circuitry may remove user identifiers associated with the second workspace identifier from the first group-based communication channel (including the second user identifier), resulting in the remaining members of the first group-based communication channel only being associated with the first workspace identifier, and implementing the communication barrier of the communication separation settings set) (BAEZ, FIG. 4, paragraphs [0143]-[0144]). Leu-Lindner and BAEZ are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, providing security and enhancements to communications systems including peer-to-peer networks. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Leu-Lindner and BAEZ before him or her, to modify the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu-Lindner to include the additional limitations of receiving, via the first user interface of the first device, a request to sever the communication channel; and removing the first identifier from the severable communications system, thereby removing access to the communication channel from the second device, as disclosed in BAEZ, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a peer-to-peer network exchange having the added benefit of improving data integrity and security in implementing communication barriers, while reducing network resource usage/processing capability constraints and mitigating compliance risks (See BAEZ, paragraph [0048]). This method of improving the peer-to-peer networking exchange of Leu-Lindner was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of BAEZ. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Leu-Lindner with BAEZ to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to Rejection of Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101, as set forth in the previous Office action, has been withdrawn.
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-7 and 14-26 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.
Conclusion
13. Applicant’s arguments, as well as request for reconsideration, filed December 12, 2025, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
14. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action. For instance, Lynch (USPAT 9,069,385) discloses systems and methods for communicating physical gestures as compressed data streams (See Abstract). Lam (USPGPUB 2021/0081157) discloses systems and methods for dynamically determining an interface for presenting information to a user. One example method includes establishing a user session between a computing device operated by an entity and a first user device operated by a customer of the entity. The first user device provides a first interface through which the customer participates in the user session. The method also includes determining, based at least on a complexity of first information to be provided to the customer, to change the first interface to a new interface. Further, the method includes selecting, based on the complexity of the first information, a new interface, where the new interface is provided by at least a second user device. Furthermore, the method includes implementing the new interface to facilitate for the customer to participate in the user session (See Abstract). In one embodiment, with reference to FIG. 2, at block 202, a user session between a user and a financial institution is initiated via a first interface. In one implementation, the user may initiate the user session, perhaps by interacting with a device that is providing the first interface. Specifically, the user may provide instructions via the interface to access financial information and/or services from the financial institution in the illustrated instance. In the example where the first interface is an audio interface, the user may initiate the user session by an audio command that may include one or more predetermined phrases (e.g., phrases associated with the audio-based device or the audio interface). Such an audio interface may be provided by an audio-based device (e.g., audio-based device 106 of FIG. 1) or may be provided by a user device that includes an audio-based virtual assistant. In the example where the first interface is a visual interface, the user may initiate the user session by an audio command, a physical input into a user device, and/or a physical gesture. The visual interface, e.g., a GUI of a software application, may be provided by a user device (e.g., user device 104) (See FIGS. 1 and 2, paragraph [0074]). Sellers (USPGPUB 2020/0177689) discloses a centralized communication interface for channel integration and interaction expansion (See Abstract). With reference to FIG. 1, a block diagram illustrates a system environment 100 configured for providing the centralized communication interface for channel integration and interaction expansion. As illustrated, the system environment 100 may comprise a centralized interface system 120, in operative communication with one or more user devices 104a-d associated with a user 102, an entity system 130, an authentication database 118, a third party system 116 and/or other systems/devices not illustrated, via a network 101. As such, the centralized interface system 120 is configured such that the user 102 may perform one or more user activities or interactions by utilizing the entity system indirectly via a user device 104 (e.g., by physically operating the user device 104 and its interfaces, using input/output devices of the user device 104, using audio commands, using physical gestures, and the like) by establishing operative communication channels between the user device 104 and the centralized interface system 120 via a wireless network and interacting with the centralized interface system 120 via the devices and interfaces of the user device 104) (See FIG. 1, paragraph [0022]). Bilbrey (USPGPUB 2011/0163944) discloses systems and methods for intuitive, gesture-based communications with physics metaphors (See Abstract). In particular, FIG. 5 illustrates an example physical gesture for initiating a communications session with a network. The physical gesture is used to indicate that the user wishes to initiate a communication session with a network resource, such as a network server. For example, the user can lift a handheld device skyward in a gesture that symbolizes uplifting a torch. In response, the device initiates the communication session with the network resource (See FIG. 5, paragraph [0045]).
15. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOSTAS J. KATSIKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/KOSTAS J KATSIKIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights