DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capretta et al. (US Patent Application No. 20120095749) (Hereinafter Capretta) in view of Melodia et al. (US Patent Application No. 20170279571) (Hereinafter Melodia) in further view of Cheung et al. (US Patent Application No. US 20040208324 A1) (Hereinafter Cheung).
As per claim 1, Capretta discloses a method for managing communications between devices of a deployment, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a first device of the devices, data for transmission to a second device of the devices, the data comprising configuration data of the first device (para 9, the audio processor of the APDU is configured to encrypt the audio of the audiovisual presentation so that only MRDs authorized and equipped to decrypt the encrypted audio may access the wireless audio service. In another implementation, the audio processor of the APDU is also configured to encode the audio of the audiovisual presentation according to a psychoacoustic encoding algorithm);
encoding, by the first device, the data to obtain encoded data to reduce a quantity of the data to transit to the second device (para 31, produce the aforementioned encrypted and/or encoded audio signal.);
encrypting, by the first device, the encoded data to obtain encrypted data (para 31, produce the aforementioned encrypted and/or encoded audio signal.);
modulating, by the first device, the encrypted data onto an audio carrier wave to obtain a modulated audio carrier (para 31, that modulates the encrypted and/or encoded audio signal onto a wireless carrier and broadcasts the modulated wireless carrier); and
transmitting, by the first device, the modulated audio carrier to provide the data to the second device (para 31, that modulates the encrypted and/or encoded audio signal onto a wireless carrier and broadcasts the modulated wireless carrier).
Capretta does not disclose the audio carrier wave being selected based on a carrier frequency rotation scheme
However, Melodia discloses the audio carrier wave being selected based on a carrier frequency rotation scheme (para 96, subcarriers are selected by a pseudo-random frequency-hopping sequence). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Capretta and Melodia. The motivation would have been to build the network that provide end to end authentication (both hardware and software based).
Capretta in view of Melodia does not explicitly disclose the audio carrier wave being ultrasonic waves configured for transmission within free space that separates the devices from one another. However, Cheung discloses the audio carrier wave (117, different types of audio signals) being ultrasonic waves configured for transmission within free space that separates the devices from one another (para 126, ultrasonic waves emit into free space). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Capretta and Melodia with Cheung. The motivation would have been to receive incoming encoded signals and provides decoded audio signals and audio conversion circuitry that produces ultrasonic signals.
The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
As per claim 2, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Melodia discloses wherein the carrier frequency rotation scheme associates each of the devices with corresponding audio carrier frequencies (para 96, subcarriers are selected by a pseudo-random frequency-hopping sequence… with an identification unique to the first node).
As per claim 3, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Melodia discloses wherein the carrier frequency rotation scheme changes the corresponding audio carrier frequencies over time (para 96, subcarriers are selected by a pseudo-random frequency-hopping sequence… with an identification unique to the first node; para 12 number of subcarriers of the symbols to be transmitted as a function of a frequency spacing between the subcarriers for a time block of a given duration).
As per claim 4, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Capretta discloses wherein the data is encoded using a public key associated with the second device (para 47, configured to employ a public-key encryption algorithm).
As per claim 5, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Melodia discloses wherein the encrypted data is modulated onto the audio carrier wave based on a proximity of the first device to the second device (para 143, proximity with the human body, while the resonant frequency and the input impedance of the antenna may shift from their nominal values.).
As per claim 6, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Capretta discloses wherein the encrypted data is modulated onto the audio carrier wave based on a type of the data (para 31, that modulates the encrypted and/or encoded audio signal onto a wireless carrier and broadcasts the modulated wireless carrier).
As per claim 7, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Capretta discloses further comprising: receiving, by the first device, a second modulated audio carrier from a second device, the second modulated audio carrier comprising a second audio carrier based on the carrier frequency rotation scheme (para 81, demodulate the modulated wireless carrier 1712, and decrypt and decode the encrypted and/or encoded audio signa);
demodulating, by the first device, the second modulated audio carrier to obtain second encrypted data (para 81, demodulate the modulated wireless carrier 1712, and decrypt and decode the encrypted and/or encoded audio signa);
decrypting, by the first device, the encrypted data using a private key associated with the first device to obtain encoded data (para 47, a matching user (i.e., "private") key are able to decrypt);
decoding, by the first device, the encoded data to obtain second data (para 52, decode the digital audio encoded by the encoder); and
providing, by the first device, computer implemented services using the second data (para 7, generate and broadcast a wireless audio service containing audio of an audiovisual presentation ).
Melodia discloses audio carrier based on the carrier frequency rotation scheme (para 96, subcarriers are selected by a pseudo-random frequency-hopping sequence)
As per claims 8 and 15, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations, as claim 1, above.
As per claims 9 and 16, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations, as claim 2, above.
As per claims 10 and 17, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations, as claim 3, above.
As per claims 11 and 18, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations, as claim 4, above.
As per claims 12 and 19, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations, as claim 5, above.
As per claim 13 , claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations, as claim 6, above.
As per claims 14 and 20, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations, as claim 7, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot due to the new ground of rejection (please see above).
Conclusion
Please see the attached PTO-892 for the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI whose telephone number is (571)272-3976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Carl G Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493