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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2024, 04/16/2025, 07/08/2025, 07/14/2025, 09/17/2025, and 11/10/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. (US 2017/0310485 A1, hereinafter Robbins) in view of Monteleone et al. (US 2021/0029491 A1, hereinafter Monteleone).
Regarding claim 1, Robbins teaches a method for managing operations of a data processing system ([0022-0023] FIG. 1 depicts Gateway 102 which may include any system or device (e.g., an Information Handling System (IHS)), and the IHS [0018] operable to compute, classify, process, transmit, receive, retrieve, originate, switch, store, display, manifest, detect, record, reproduce, handle, or utilize any form of information, intelligence, or data for business, scientific, control, entertainment, or other purposes, i.e. managing operations of a data processing system), the data processing system comprising hardware resources and a management controller that operates independently from the hardware resources ([0018] the IHS may include hardware or software control components such as CPU, storage devices, communication ports, or input and output (I/O) devices, and the IHS may also include one or more buses operable to transmit communications between the various hardware components as shown in FIG. 1), the method comprising: obtaining a location log ([0004] in asset tracking, enterprises, hospitals, factories, etc. may accurately track the location of equipment, shipped items, persons, vehicles, and so on, i.e. obtain/monitor locations and save said locations in memory, i.e. obtaining a location log), by a management controller of the data processing system and via out-of-band communication channel of the data processing system ([0006] may include broadcasting, by a gateway which may include the IHS, IHS read as controller, a wireless beacon that is out-of-band with respect to communications between the gateway and a plurality of devices over a network, for securing IoT devices through the use of an out-of-band beacon, i.e. data processing system via out-of-band communication channel), by the management controller and using the location log ([0018] the IHS, IHS read as controller, is capable of using/generating/monitoring [0004] a plurality of locations, i.e. a location log), and providing, by the management controller and via the out-of-band communication channel ([0040 and 0042] depicted in FIG. 2, RF controller 206 is coupled to an RF antenna, and it may include any RF transceiver capable of transmitting out-of-band beacon 114, which is received from Gateway 102, which is connected to the IHS, IHS read as controller, and at block 301, gateway 102 transmits out-of-band wireless beacon 114 containing a token, for example, using RF controller 206 of FIG. 2, and [0044] gateway 102 transmits the resulting payload to IoT device 104), the location report to an external device- (the transmissions described above may include [0004] asset tracking, enterprises, hospitals, factories, etc. for accurately tracking the location of equipment, shipped items, persons, vehicles, and so on, and shown in FIG. 1 Gateway 102 may transmit via an out-of-band communication channel 114 transmissions to a plurality of IoT devices, i.e. a location report being transmitted to an external device).
Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specially teach the location log indicating validated location data for the data processing system obtained over a period of time; generating a location report, the location report indicating geographical locations at different points in time of the data processing system; and -usable to verify whether the data processing system is following an expected path. However, Monteleone teaches [abstract] a tracking method using geolocation data and the method comprises obtaining a set of predetermined GPS locations representing a course/path/map, tracking movements of a user using a GPS controller, authenticating the movements of the user against the set of predetermined GPS locations while the client terminal is within a predetermined distance of at least one of the set of predetermined GPS locations, and presenting consolidated timing information about the user's movements along the set of predetermined GPS locations. Monteleone also teaches the location log indicating validated location data for the data processing system obtained over a period of time ([0065] the system 100 retrieves the geolocation position of the user to compare against any of the set of geolocation positions 210-230, as shown in FIG. 2, and [0029] the user's geolocation and time at the geolocation is recorded and tracked, and this tracked information is authenticated against the set of geolocation positions to ensure that the user is moving to locations as prescribed by the set of geolocation positions); generating a location report ([0072] FIG. 3-10 depict a graphical user interface, in which the user may obtain a screen 300 which provides an exemplary image/map/report 310 of the course with the course's location, and [0076] FIG. 5/6 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a screenshot 500 of a graphical user interface for deactivating the tracking of the user's movements on a course, where the interface also shows previous lap times on the course, i.e. generating a full location report), the location report indicating geographical locations at different points in time of the data processing system (FIG. 3/4 depict geographical locations, and Fig 5/6 depict how these geographical locations may be associated with time stamps or points in time of the data processing system); and -usable to verify whether the data processing system is following an expected path ([0031] allows user course and/or lap time to be tracked on the predetermined course, and [0032] the technique can be used for any course and is not limited to race tracks, trails, or path, and [0069] describes a success rate/threshold to verify the data processing system is following the expected path via geolocation positions against the total number of geolocation positions in the set of geolocation positions 210-230 for the course 205, and [0056] describes the messaging server 170 also facilitates messages from users to course proprietors, so that users can report other users, problems with the course, or any other messages meant for the course proprietor, i.e. another technique used to verify whether the data processing system is following an expected path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, and an expected path, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 2, Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the external device is a server capable of determining whether the data processing system is following an expected path of one or more expected paths, the expected path indicating a sequence of geographical locations and a duration of time over which the data processing system traverses the expected path to be considered normal. However, Monteleone teaches as such ([0009] the one or more client terminals of the system are configured to obtain, from the central database, a set of predetermined GPS locations representing a course; track movements of a user using a GPS controller, where tracking the movements of the user further comprises timing the movements of the user; authenticate the movements of the user against the set of predetermined GPS locations while the client terminal is within a predetermined distance of at least one of the set of predetermined GPS locations; and upon determining whether successful authentication of the user's movements is greater than a predetermined success threshold, storing timing information in the central database, and retrieving and presenting the timing information on the client terminal, i.e. a server database capable of determining whether the data processing system is following an expected path's threshold via geolocation data in association with time, and calculating a [0068] user success rate and comparing that value to the predetermined success rate/threshold in order to ensure "the expected path to be considered normal").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, an expected path and the ability to ensure the path is “considered normal,” as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 3, Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the external device is a user device that uses the location report to determine whether the geographical locations indicated by the location report are consistent with an external report generated by a user of the data processing system, the external report being considered normal. However, Monteleone teaches the external device is a user device that uses the location report to determine whether the geographical locations indicated by the location report are consistent with an external report generated by a user of the data processing system (FIG. 3-10 depict the external device is a user device that displays the location report to the user, and [0056] describes the messaging server 170 of the user tracking system 100, which may be used to report inconsistent times/geolocations or other errors/glitches, i.e. the user may compare the external report (report of others or map expectancies as shown in FIG. 3/10) to their own generated location report), the external report being considered normal ([0068] comparing user success rate to the predetermined success rate/threshold in order to ensure "the expected path to be considered normal").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, an expected path and the ability to ensure the path is “considered normal,” as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 4, Robbins teaches obtaining the location log comprises: obtaining, by the management controller ([0018] the IHS, IHS read as controller, is capable of using/generating/monitoring [0004] a plurality of locations, i.e. a location log) and via the out-of-band communication channel (FIG 1. depicts gateway 102, [0022-0023] which may include the IHS, [0040 and 0042] transmits out-of-band wireless beacon 114, i.e. out-of-band communication channel).
Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the validated location data for the data processing system at different points in time; and generating the location log using the validated location data. However, Monteleone teaches as such ([0068-0069] describes the system is capable of allowing the timer to create track cut penalties based on geolocations, and the system 100 resets the set of geolocation positions to incomplete, or when the system 100 determines that the user has completed the lap, then the lap is counted, lap information is recorded, and the timer for the lap is reset for the next geolocation dataset, and this information will be used to validate the location data for the location log and display said location log to the external device, i.e. validating data and generating the location log based on validated data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 5, Robbins teaches obtaining the validated location data comprises: obtaining, by the management controller ([0018] the IHS, IHS read as controller, is capable of using/generating/monitoring [0004] a plurality of locations, i.e. a location log) and via the out-of-band communication channel (FIG 1. depicts gateway 102, [0022-0023] which may include the IHS, [0040 and 0042] transmits out-of-band wireless beacon 114, i.e. out-of-band communication channel), obtaining, by the management controller and using at least a private key of a public private key pair ([0006] describes decrypting the encrypted packet into an intermediate payload by the gateway, which may include [0022-0023] the IHS, IHS read as management controller, using a public key, where the public key corresponds to a certificate provisioned to each of the plurality of devices, i.e. using at least a private key of a public private key pair).
Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach first location data for the data processing system; performing, by the management controller, a comparison process using the first location data and second location data to determine whether the first location data is consistent with the second location data, the second location data being a different type of data than the first location data; in a first instance of the comparison process in which the first location data is determined to be consistent with the second location data: and the validated location data based on the first location data and the second location data. However, Monteleone teaches first location data for the data processing system; performing, by the management controller, a comparison process using the first location data and second location data to determine whether the first location data is consistent with the second location data ([0063] first geolocation is the start/finish point for the proprietor. As the proprietor moves along the course, the system 100 records the proprietor's geolocation at certain intervals on his mobile device 110, and the set of geolocation positions 210-230 are made, and in creating the set of geolocation positions 210-230, proprietors use a similar tracking technique to the tracking of users, as shown in FIG. 1/2), the second location data being a different type of data than the first location data ([0065-0068] FIG. 2 shows geolocation positions 211-230, all being a different type of data than the first location data 210); in a first instance of the comparison process in which the first location data is determined to be consistent with the second location data ([0065] describes if the calculated distance between the user's current geolocation position and a particular geolocation position of the set 210-230 is equal to or less than a predetermined distance/threshold, then the system 100 marks the particular geolocation position as complete): and the validated location data based on the first location data and the second location data ([0065-0069] describes validating location data, based on a plurality of validated locations, as shown in FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, an expected path and the ability to ensure the path is “considered normal” via a plurality of location data sets, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 6, Robbins teaches obtaining, by the management controller ([0018] the IHS, IHS read as controller, is capable of using/generating/monitoring [0004] a plurality of locations, i.e. a location log) and via the out-of-band communication channel (FIG 1. depicts gateway 102, [0022-0023] which may include the IHS, [0040 and 0042] transmits out-of-band wireless beacon 114, i.e. out-of-band communication channel).
Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach performing the comparison process comprises: and the second location data for the data processing system; and making a determination, based on the first location data and the second location data, regarding whether a difference between the first location data and the second location data falls within a threshold. However, Monteleone teaches performing the comparison process comprises ([0065-0069] describes the comparison process): and the second location data for the data processing system; and making a determination, based on the first location data and the second location data, regarding whether a difference between the first location data and the second location data falls within a threshold (Fig. 2 depicts geolocations 210-230 with geolocation 210 being the first location data and geolocation 211 being the second location data for the data processing system and [0068] each established course in the system 100 has a success rate (also referred herein as a predetermined success threshold). The success rate is used to make sure that users do not cut the course or cheat. The success rate may be defined by the course proprietor or by the system, based on an ongoing aggregation and normalization of the completion rates by users. In one embodiment, the success rate is set at a default of 70%. The success rate is the threshold for the system 100 to consider a lap or stage as complete, and the success rate is based on the number of completed geolocation positions against the total number of geolocation positions in the set of geolocation positions 210-230 for the course 205, i.e. ensuring location data and timestamps fall within a threshold for a plurality of locations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, an expected path and the ability to ensure the path is “considered normal” via a plurality of location data sets and a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 7, Robbins differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach obtaining additional validated location data for the data processing system; updating the location log using the additional validated location data to obtain an updated location log; providing the updated location log to the external device to use for computer-implemented services. However, Monteleone teaches obtaining additional validated location data for the data processing system; updating the location log using the additional validated location data to obtain an updated location log (Fig. 2 depicts geolocations 210-230 with geolocations 212-230 being additional validated location data, and [0063] the system 100 records the proprietor's geolocation at certain intervals when creating the map/path/course, and the proprietor can add additional validated location data to an updated location log such as geolocations 212-230); providing the updated location log to the external device to use for computer-implemented services (FIG. 3/4 depict the updated location log being displayed on an external device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbins to include the location log being validated in association with time, generating a location report, an expected path, the ability to ensure the path is “considered normal” via a plurality of location data sets and a predetermined threshold value, and update/display a location log accordingly, as taught by Monteleone, in order to improve the ability to [0005] compare times quickly, allow users to easily compare tracking data and provide for a means to authenticate or confirm that the course/path was followed by the tracking data via [0029] geolocation positioning.
Regarding claim 8, Robbins teaches the data processing system comprises a network module adapted to separately advertise network endpoints for the management controller and hardware resources of the data processing system (FIG. 1 depicts a plurality of network endpoints advertising for the network module 102 and other hardware), the network endpoints being usable by a server to address communications to the hardware resources using an in-band communication channel and the management controller using the out-of-band communication channel ([0018] describes an Information Handling System (IHS), which may include or utilize a network server or storage device to address communications to the hardware resources as shown in FIG. 1, and [0031] in-band (or ordinary) communications take place via LAN 113, while out-of-band beacon 114 provides additional security measures, gateway 102 transmits out-of-band beacon 114 to any IoT device in its vicinity also shown in FIG. 1, the Gateway 102 may still transmit via in-band communication channels via LAN connection 113, and may also transmit via out-of-band communication channels via the out-of-band communication system 103 and out-of-band beacon 114).
Regarding claim 10, Robbins teaches the out-of-band communication channel runs through the network module (FIG. 1 depicts the out-of-band communication channel 114 runs through the network module 102), and an in-band communication channel that services the hardware resources also runs through the network module (FIG. 1 depicts the in-band communication channel (not labeled) running through the LAN 113 to the Internet 115 and to hardware resources such as 118 and 116, originating from the network module 102).
Regarding claim 12, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Robbins teaching a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operations of a data processing system- ([0010] device may include a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the device to manage operations of a data processing system).
Regarding claim 13, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 15.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. (US 2017/0310485 A1, hereinafter Robbins) and Monteleone et al. (US 2021/0029491 A1, hereinafter Monteleone) as applied in claims above, and further in view of Kariman (US 2015/0208195 A1, hereinafter Kariman).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Robbins and Monteleone differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the management controller and the network module are on separate power domains from the hardware resources so that the management controller and the network module are operable while the hardware resources are inoperable. However, Kariman teaches a method for [abstract] facilitating acquisition and transmission of location-based data out-of-band, and the management controller and the network module are on separate power domains from the hardware resources so that the management controller and the network module are operable while the hardware resources are inoperable ([0017] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the disclosed invention, where the circuitry that operates the network access software 3 and/or the out-of-band operating system 2 is powered from a separate power source 8 than the electronic device 7, i.e. FIG.4 depicts separate power sources for the management controller and the network module).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Robbins and Monteleone to include separate power domains, as taught by Kariman, in order to [0017] allow the in-band operating system 1 and the out-of-band operating system 2 to exchange data with the location detection system 4 while it is communicatively coupled with the electronic device and therefore [0011] improve facilitating persistent Location-Based Services and [abstract] transmission of location-based data.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins et al. (US 2017/0310485 A1, hereinafter Robbins) and Monteleone et al. (US 2021/0029491 A1, hereinafter Monteleone) as applied in claims above, and further in view of Howe (US 2005/0058149 A1, hereinafter Howe).
Regarding claim 11, Robbins teaches -to facilitate network communications via the out-of-band communication channel (FIG. 1 depicts network communications via the out-of-band communication channel 114).
The combination of Robbins and Monteleone differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the network module hosts a transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP) stack-. However, Howe teaches [abstract] capabilities for synchronizing data networks and/or data network links, establishing time-schedules, time-reservations, time-schedule reservations, and/or reservation time-slots for packets, cells, frames, and/or datagrams, and for transferring, transmitting, switching, routing, and/or receiving time-sensitive data over networks. Howe also teaches the network module hosts a transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP) stack- ([0034 and 0367] FIG. 49 illustrates the control plane and user plane for Time-Scheduled packet switching using the TCP/IP reference model, i.e. the tracking system works in allocation with transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Robbins and Monteleone to include the network communications of the time associated location data to be transmitted in accordance with a transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP) stack, as taught by Howe, in order to [0069] alleviate delay problems and [0123] increase efficiency for various timing and scheduling improvements having to do with data transfer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang, Qiong et al. (2020). Monitoring-based edge computing service with delay assurance (US 2020/0351900 A1). Filed 2019-04-30. Discloses a method for determining the lowest cost path in association with a predicted user route and multiple wireless access points along said route and respective time points. (abstract)
Van Liesdonk, Peter Petrus et al. (2020). Location tracking enabling privacy protection (US 2020/0082113 A1). Filed 2019-08-29. Discloses a location tracking system capable of storing data in association with encryption-keys and protocols. (abstract)
Smith, Clint et al. (2017). Enhanced location based information enabling self-realized leases (US 2017/0287085 A1). Filed 2017-03-22. Discloses generating enhanced location information on or about a wireless device via calculating its location based on location data received from other devices. (abstract)
Saini, Shiv Kumar et al. (2017). Identifying sources of anomalies in multi-variable metrics using linearization (US 2017/0111432 A1). Filed 2015-10-19. Discloses identifying multi-variable metrics that contribute to analytic anomalies in association with users accessing networks to transfer files. (abstract and [0004])
Smith, Clint (2017). Method and system for enhanced location based information for fixed platforms (US 2017/0055128 A1). Filed 2016-11-07. Discloses the ability for a device to establish a location fix based on the received information of other devices, the device may establish a communication group and/or collect additional location information from devices that belong to the communication group. (abstract)
Rauber, Peter H. et al. (2010). Deployment and distribution model for improved content delivery (US 2010/0057563 A1). Filed 2008-09-02. Discloses a transfer method for a deployment and distribution model for improving content delivery with a business incentive for placement of kiosks with one or more wireless access points. (abstract)
Mccarthy, Charles Chad et al. (2010). Privacy management for tracked devices (US 2010/0014676 A1). Filed 2009-07-17. Discloses a method for protection of private data while permitting the monitoring or tracking of electronic devices. (abstract)
Cermak, Gregory Wayne et al. (2006). Passive locator (US 2006/0105795 A1). Filed 2005-11-14. Discloses a location tracking system via gathering location data and a generated location report. (abstract)
Kobayashi, Emiko et al. (2006). Storage network management server, storage network managing method, storage network managing program, and storage network management system (US 2006/0050630 A1). Filed 2004-11-16. Discloses managing path information, status, switching, and fault information for data transfer over networks. (abstract)
Cline, James Douglas (2002). Method and system for marine vessel tracking system (US 2002/0169527 A1). Filed 2002-05-14. Discloses a marine ship tracking system that automatically and accurately monitors ship movements. (abstract)
Janky, James M. et al. (1998). Vehicle route and schedule exception reporting system (US 5751245 A). Filed 1996-03-07. Discloses a tracking device to attach to a mobile shipping vehicle having a predetermined geographic route. (abstract)
Kumar, Ambuj et al. (2018). Location aware cryptography (US 2018/0183593 A1). Filed 2018-02-20. Discloses a first entity may provide a request to transmit data from the first entity to a second entity, in accordance with session keys. (abstract)
Soundararajan, Varun et al. (2017). Systems and methods for providing call context to content providers (US 2017/0017622 A1). Filed 2015-07-14. Discloses a method for providing tracking data of transmissions in accordance with a database and mapped connections/locations. (FIG. 2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES DWYER whose telephone number is (571)272-5121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. EST.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES DWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699