CTNF 18/518,128 CTNF 73915 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/29/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that inventions I and II provide the same general purpose, overall structure and underlying architecture of mobile devices, system software and identifying means disclosed throughout the specification. This is found persuasive because upon further review of the claims, it is determined that all of the claims can be examined together. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 11 recites the limitation “ identifying means ” in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 17 recites the limitation “ identifying means ” in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699) . Regarding claim 1, Canter discloses a method comprising: affixing a QR code to a fixed location (corresponding to a vending machine or kiosk display) (paragraph 13, line 7: “displaying the QR code on a vending machine or kiosk display”); and scanning, using a first mobile device (or a smart phone) corresponding to a first user (or a customer), the QR code affixed to the location (paragraph 13, line 8: “allow a customer to scan that code using a smart phone camera”). Canter fails to disclose in response to scanning of the QR code, sending, using the first mobile device, a communication request to a second mobile device corresponding to a second user via a network. However, in an analogous art, Phillips discloses in response to scanning of a QR code (paragraph 131, line 1: “At block 1110 in FIG. 11, a first mobile device scans … a QR code”), sending, using a first mobile device, a communication request (corresponding to a payment request) to a second mobile device corresponding to a second user via a network (paragraph 132, lines 1-4: “At block 1120, the first mobile device sends a payment request to a second mobile device, based at least in part on information obtained by the scanning of the QR code by the first mobile device … The communication between the two mobile devices may, for example, be via one or more mobile communication networks”; paragraph 136, lines 1-2: “the user of the second mobile device responds … to approve the payment request received from the first mobile device”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter by incorporating this feature taught in Phillips for the purpose of allowing efficient and accurate device-to-device communication for transaction initiation using data obtained from a scanned code. The combination of Canter and Phillips fails to disclose authenticating a user to provide communication between mobile devices, including selectively authenticating, using the second mobile device, the first mobile device for communication. However, in an analogous art, Hessler discloses authenticating a user to provide communication between mobile devices, including selectively authenticating (by personalized authentication context factors), using the second mobile device, the first mobile device for communication (paragraph 78, lines 1-2: “a user on a mobile device who wishes to authenticate another user on another mobile device … via … session connection”; paragraph 112, lines 1-2: “any factors … during the main authentication session, including … personalized authentication context factors”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter and Phillips by incorporating this feature taught in Hessler for the purpose of ensuring that communication is established only between authorized mobile devices, thereby improving security. Regarding claim 10, Canter discloses a method comprising: affixing an identifying means (corresponding to a QR code) to a specific location (corresponding to a vending machine or kiosk display) (paragraph 13, line 7: “displaying the QR code on a vending machine or kiosk display”); and scanning, using a first mobile device (or a smart phone) corresponding to a first user (or a customer), the identifying means affixed to the location (paragraph 13, line 8: “allow a customer to scan that code using a smart phone camera”). Canter fails to disclose in response to scanning of the identifying means, sending, using the first mobile device a communication request to a second mobile device corresponding to a second user via a network. However, Phillips discloses in response to scanning of an identifying means (corresponding to a QR code) (paragraph 131, line 1: “At block 1110 in FIG. 11, a first mobile device scans … a QR code”), sending, using a first mobile device, a communication request (corresponding to a payment request) to a second mobile device corresponding to a second user via a network (paragraph 132, lines 1-4: “At block 1120, the first mobile device sends a payment request to a second mobile device, based at least in part on information obtained by the scanning of the QR code by the first mobile device … The communication between the two mobile devices may, for example, be via one or more mobile communication networks”; paragraph 136, lines 1-2: “the user of the second mobile device responds … to approve the payment request received from the first mobile device”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter by incorporating this feature taught in Phillips for the purpose of allowing efficient and accurate device-to-device communication for transaction initiation using data obtained from a scanned code. The combination of Canter and Phillips fails to disclose authenticating a user to provide communication between mobile devices, including selectively authenticating, using the second mobile device, the first mobile device for communication. However, Hessler discloses authenticating a user to provide communication between mobile devices, including selectively authenticating (by personalized authentication context factors), using the second mobile device, the first mobile device for communication (paragraph 78, lines 1-2: “a user on a mobile device who wishes to authenticate another user on another mobile device … via … session connection”; paragraph 112, lines 1-2: “any factors … during the main authentication session, including … personalized authentication context factors”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter and Phillips by incorporating this feature taught in Hessler for the purpose of ensuring that communication is established only between authorized mobile devices, thereby improving security. Regarding claim 12, Canter discloses that the first mobile device (or smart phone) includes at least one scanning device comprising at least one of a camera, an RFID tag, or RFID reader (paragraph 13, line 8: “allow a customer to scan that code using a smart phone camera”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329) . Regarding claim 2, the combination of Canter, Phillips and Hessler fails to disclose affixing at least one of an RFID reader or an RFID tag to the fixed location. However, in an analogous art, Killian discloses affixing at least one of an RFID reader or an RFID tag to a fixed location (col. 2, lines 11-12: “an RFID tag is fixed at a location.”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips and Hessler by incorporating this feature taught in Killian for the purpose of allowing a mobile device to automatically identify the location and initiate associated operations . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Laracey (US 2013/0311313) and Tung et al. (US 2011/0280239) . Regarding claim 3, Killian further discloses that a first mobile device (corresponding to a cellular telephone) includes the other of the RFID reader and RFID tag (col. 3, lines 61-65: “The mobile RFID reader may be … included in … cellular telephones”), and the method further comprising: scanning (corresponding to reading), using the RFID reader, a unique identifier (corresponding to stored location information) associated with an RFID tag (col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 1: “A user can use a mobile RIFD reader … to read the RFID tags … and retrieve the … location information stored in the RFID tags”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler and Killian by incorporating this feature further taught in Killian for the purpose of enabling fast and accurate identification of an item or location using a mobile device. The combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler and Killian fails to disclose in response to scanning of the unique identifier, sending, using the first mobile device the communication request to a second device. However, in an analogous art, Laracey discloses in response to scanning of a unique identifier (corresponding to reading a checkout token) (paragraph 18, lines 3-4: “the checkout token … is read by an … NFC enabled mobile device 102”), sending, using the first mobile device a communication request (corresponding to information for use in completing or requesting a transaction) to a second device (corresponding to a transaction management system) (paragraph 20, lines 1-3: “the reading of the checkout token … by the NFC enabled mobile device 102 causes information to be transmitted from the NFC enabled mobile device 102 to a transaction management system 108 for use in completing a transaction.”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler and Killian by incorporating this feature taught in Laracey for the purpose of enabling seamless device-to-device interaction without requiring manual device selection. The combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian and Laracey fails to disclose sending the communication request from the first mobile device to a second mobile device specifically. However, in an analogous art, Tung discloses sending a communication request from a first mobile device (corresponding to a communication device) to a second mobile device (corresponding to another communication device) (claim 1, lines 4-5: “based upon the predetermined condition, sending a request by the communication device to the another communication device”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian and Laracey by incorporating this feature taught in Tung for the purpose of reducing reliance on intermediary systems and allowing a user of the second mobile device to respond to the communication request . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Laracey (US 2013/0311313), Tung et al. (US 2011/0280239) and Tanikawa et al. (US 2018/0129840) . Regarding claim 4, the combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Laracey and Tung fails to disclose that the RFID reader and the RFID tag are configured to communicate via near field communication. However, in an analogous art, Tanikawa discloses that an RFID reader 300 in FIG. 1 and an RFID tag 400 are configured to communicate via near field communication (paragraph 36, lines 3-4: “a reader 300 for an RFID tag for near-field wireless communication, and one or more RFID tags 400 for near-field wireless communication”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Laracey and Tung by incorporating this feature taught in Tanekawa for the purpose of providing a standardized, short-range implementation of RFID for improved compatibility with mobile devices . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Laracey (US 2013/0311313), Tung et al. (US 2011/0280239), Tanikawa et al. (US 2018/0129840) and Tagare et al. (US 2023/0053216) . Regarding claim 5, the combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Laracey, Tung and Tanekawa fails to disclose that the communication between the first mobile device and the second mobile device comprises at least one of an audio call, a video call, or messaging. However, in an analogous art, Tagare discloses that a communication between the first mobile device (corresponding to a first UE) and the second mobile device (corresponding to a second UE) comprises at least one of an audio call, a video call, or messaging (paragraph 48, lines 3-4: “a first UE and a second UE may communicate one or more configuration messages to establish … a video call between the first UE and second UE.”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Laracey, Tung and Tanekawa by incorporating this feature taught in Tagare for the purpose of providing the convenience of real-time and visual interaction for the users of the first and second mobile devices . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Laracey (US 2013/0311313), Tung et al. (US 2011/0280239), Tanikawa et al. (US 2018/0129840), Tagare et al. (US 2023/0053216) and Farkash et al. (US 2016/0379010) . Regarding claim 6, the combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Laracey, Tung, Tanekawa and Tagare fails to disclose masking identifying data associated with at least one of the first mobile device and the second mobile device. However, in an analogous art, Farkash discloses masking identifying data associated with at least one of a first mobile device and a second mobile device (claim 1, line 1: “masking data in a software application associated with a mobile computing device”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Laracey, Tung, Tanekawa and Tagare by incorporating this feature taught in Farkash for the purpose of protecting privacy and preventing unauthorized access or tracking by concealing identifying information associated with the mobile device . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Laracey (US 2013/0311313), Tung et al. (US 2011/0280239), Tanikawa et al. (US 2018/0129840), Tagare et al. (US 2023/0053216), Farkash et al. (US 2016/0379010) and Beghtol et al. (US 6,253,075) . Regarding claim 7, the combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Laracey, Tung, Tanekawa, Tagare and Farkash fails to disclose subsequent to sending of the communication request from the first mobile device to the second mobile device, enabling the second mobile device to deny the communication request such that the first mobile device is not authenticated for communication. However, in an analogous art, Beghtol discloses subsequent to sending of a communication request from a first mobile device to a second mobile device, enabling the second mobile device to deny the communication request (corresponding to transmitting a rejection message) such that the first mobile device is not authenticated for communication (col. 3, line 64 – col. 4, line 4: “if the incoming call is to be rejected, the message processor automatically transmits a rejection message from the mobile station … the call is released”; col. 3, lines 61-63: “identification information associated with an incoming call is compared with identification information stored in the rejection memory”; Abstract, lines 5-6: “When a match is detected, a rejection message is automatically sent by the mobile communications device to the transmitting station”; automatically sending a rejection message in response to the match corresponds to the caller associated with the first mobile device not being authenticated for communication). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Laracey, Tung, Tanekawa, Tagare and Farkash by incorporating this feature taught in Beghtol for the purpose of allowing the receiving mobile device to control access and prevent unauthorized communications, thereby enhancing security and user control . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Johnston et al. (US 2020/0084593) . Regarding claim 8, the combination of Canter, Phillips and Hessler fails to disclose that the communication between the first mobile device and the second mobile device is established using a smart device software application accessible via at least one of the first mobile device and the second mobile device. However, in an analogous art, Johnston discloses that a communication (corresponding to sending messages) between a first mobile device and a second mobile device is established using a smart device software application (corresponding to a mobile app) accessible via at least one of the first mobile device and the second mobile device (paragraph 26, lines 1-6: “the communication system includes a mobile application (‘app’), which comprises a software application that may be installed on a mobile device such as a smartphone … The app is run on a processor of the mobile device … to send messages to a plurality of other mobile devices”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips and Hessler by incorporating this feature taught in Johnston for the purpose of enabling device-to-device communication with controlled functionality, improved user experience and enhanced feature integration . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Moulin et al. (US 2014/0266626), Nidamarthi et al. (US 8,444,048) and Tung et al. (US 2011/0280239) . Regarding claim 9, Killian further discloses that a first mobile device (corresponding to a cellular telephone) includes the other of the RFID reader and RFID tag (col. 3, lines 61-65: “The mobile RFID reader may be … included in … cellular telephones”), and the method further comprising: scanning (corresponding to reading), using the RFID reader, a unique identifier (corresponding to stored location information) associated with an RFID tag (col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 1: “A user can use a mobile RIFD reader … to read the RFID tags … and retrieve the … location information stored in the RFID tags”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler and Killian by incorporating this feature further taught in Killian for the purpose of enabling fast and accurate identification of an item or location using a mobile device. The combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler and Killian fails to disclose scanning, using the RFID reader, a unique identifier associated with the RFID tag contemporaneously with the scanning of the QR code. However, in an analogous art, Moulin discloses scanning, using the RFID reader, a unique identifier associated with the RFID tag contemporaneously with the scanning of the QR code (paragraph 5, line 4: “QR code, RFID … has been scanned or read by the PED”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler and Killian by incorporating this feature further taught in Moulin for the purpose of reducing errors and enabling efficient association of physical objects with corresponding digital information. The combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian and Moulin fails to disclose in response to the contemporaneous scanning of the unique identifier and the QR code, sending, using the first mobile device the communication request to a second device. However, in an analogous art, Nidamarthi discloses in response to the contemporaneous scanning of the unique identifier (corresponding to detecting and deciphering an RFID) and the QR code (corresponding to detecting and deciphering a QR code), sending, using the first mobile device the communication request (corresponding to transmitting an item of recipient reaction information) to a second device (corresponding to a server) (col. 3, line 61 – col. 4, line 3: “the scanning function takes the form of a QR code reader detecting and deciphering a QR code in an image captured by a camera of the mobile device … the scanning function takes the form of an RFID reader detecting and deciphering an RFID. The encoded information associates the physical package with a transaction … The mobile computing device transmits, using the encoded information, an item of recipient reaction information to a server at a network location.”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian and Moulin by incorporating this feature further taught in Nidamarthi for the purpose of improving efficiency and accuracy, reducing false triggers and streamlining user interaction. The combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian and Moulin and Nidamarthi fails to disclose sending the communication request from the first mobile device to a second mobile device specifically. However, in an analogous art, Tung discloses sending a communication request from a first mobile device (corresponding to a communication device) to a second mobile device (corresponding to another communication device) (claim 1, lines 4-5: “based upon the predetermined condition, sending a request by the communication device to the another communication device”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin and Nidamarthi by incorporating this feature taught in Tung for the purpose of reducing reliance on intermediary systems and allowing a user of the second mobile device to respond to the communication request. Regarding claim 11, Canter discloses identifying means that comprises at least one of a QR code, an RFID tag, or RFID reader (paragraph 23, lines 3-4: “The QR code also encodes information (e.g., a vending machine identifier)”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Moulin et al. (US 2014/0266626), Nidamarthi et al. (US 8,444,048), Tung (US 2011/0280239) and Tagare et al. (US 2023/0053216) . Regarding claim 13, the combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin, Nidamarthi and Tung fails to disclose that the communication between the first mobile device and the second mobile device comprises at least one of an audio call, a video call, or messaging. However, in an analogous art, Tagare discloses that a communication between the first mobile device (corresponding to a first UE) and the second mobile device (corresponding to a second UE) comprises at least one of an audio call, a video call, or messaging (paragraph 48, lines 3-4: “a first UE and a second UE may communicate one or more configuration messages to establish … a video call between the first UE and second UE.”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin, Nidamarthi and Tung by incorporating this feature taught in Tagare for the purpose of providing the convenience of real-time and visual interaction for the users of the first and second mobile devices . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Moulin et al. (US 2014/0266626), Nidamarthi et al. (US 8,444,048), Tung (US 2011/0280239) and Farkash et al. (US 2016/0379010) . Regarding claim 14, the combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin, Nidamarthi and Tung fails to disclose masking identifying data associated with at least one of the first mobile device and the second mobile device. However, Farkash discloses masking identifying data associated with at least one of a first mobile device and a second mobile device (claim 1, line 1: “masking data in a software application associated with a mobile computing device”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin, Nidamarthi and Tung by incorporating this feature taught in Farkash for the purpose of protecting privacy and preventing unauthorized access or tracking by concealing identifying information associated with the mobile device . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Moulin et al. (US 2014/0266626), Nidamarthi et al. (US 8,444,048), Tung (US 2011/0280239) and Johnston et al. (US 2020/0084593) . Regarding claim 15, the combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin, Nidamarthi and Tung fails to disclose that the communication between the first mobile device and the second mobile device is established using a smart device software application accessible via at least one of the first mobile device and the second mobile device. However, Johnston discloses that a communication (corresponding to sending messages) between a first mobile device and a second mobile device is established using a smart device software application (corresponding to a mobile app) accessible via at least one of the first mobile device and the second mobile device (paragraph 26, lines 1-6: “the communication system includes a mobile application (‘app’), which comprises a software application that may be installed on a mobile device such as a smartphone … The app is run on a processor of the mobile device … to send messages to a plurality of other mobile devices”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin, Nidamarthi and Tung by incorporating this feature taught in Johnston for the purpose of enabling device-to-device communication with controlled functionality, improved user experience and enhanced feature integration. Regarding claim 17, Canter discloses identifying means that comprises at least one of a QR code, an RFID tag, or RFID reader (paragraph 23, lines 3-4: “The QR code also encodes information (e.g., a vending machine identifier)”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Beghtol et al. (US 6,253,075), and further in view of Grim (US 2013/0104198) . Regarding claim 16, Canter discloses a system, comprising: an identifying means (corresponding to a QR code) in operative connection with a fixed location (corresponding to a vending machine or kiosk display) (paragraph 13, line 7: “displaying the QR code on a vending machine or kiosk display”); and a first mobile device (or a smart phone) corresponding to a first user (or a customer), wherein the first mobile device is configured to scan the identifying means (paragraph 13, line 8: “allow a customer to scan that code using a smart phone camera”). Canter fails to disclose that responsive to scanning the identifying means, the first mobile device is configured to send a communication request to a second mobile device corresponding to a second user via a network. However, Phillips discloses that responsive to scanning an identifying means (corresponding to a QR code) (paragraph 131, line 1: “At block 1110 in FIG. 11, a first mobile device scans … a QR code”), a first mobile device is configured to send a communication request (corresponding to a payment request) to a second mobile device corresponding to a second user via a network (paragraph 132, lines 1-4: “At block 1120, the first mobile device sends a payment request to a second mobile device, based at least in part on information obtained by the scanning of the QR code by the first mobile device … The communication between the two mobile devices may, for example, be via one or more mobile communication networks”; paragraph 136, lines 1-2: “the user of the second mobile device responds … to approve the payment request received from the first mobile device”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter by incorporating this feature taught in Phillips for the purpose of allowing efficient and accurate device-to-device communication for transaction initiation using data obtained from a scanned code. The combination of Canter and Phillips fails to disclose authenticating a user to provide communication between mobile devices, wherein the second mobile device is configured to accept or deny communications from the first mobile device, wherein the first mobile device is authenticated for communication upon acceptance of the request. However, Beghtol discloses authenticating a user to provide communication between mobile devices, wherein a second mobile device is configured to accept or deny communications from a first mobile device (col. 7, lines 18-20: “At block 212 the user decides to accept the incoming call which is then connected”; col. 3, line 64 – col. 4, line 4: “if the incoming call is to be rejected, the message processor automatically transmits a rejection message from the mobile station … the call is released”), wherein the first mobile device is authenticated for communication upon acceptance of the request (col. 2, lines 13-16: “If the mobile phone user decides to answer the incoming call, a response is sent from the mobile to the base station indicating that the call is to be accepted.”; sending a response indicating that a call is to be accepted corresponds to authenticating the first mobile device for communication). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter and Phillips by incorporating this feature taught in Beghtol for the purpose of allowing the receiving mobile device to control access and prevent unauthorized communications, thereby enhancing security and user control. The combination of Canter, Phillips and Beghtol fails to disclose that responsive to receipt of the communication request, the second user is enabled to accept or deny the communication request via at least one input to the second mobile device. However, in an analogous art, Grim discloses wherein responsive to receipt of the communication request, the second user is enabled to accept or deny the communication request (paragraph 27, lines 4-5: “The user sends a permission response via the mobile device to the authentication service, granting or denying the action”) via at least one input to the second mobile device (paragraph 46, lines 4-5: “The mobile device 208 is configured to receive sensory input from the user to determine the permission response.”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips and Beghtol by incorporating this feature taught in Grim for the purpose of providing user control over incoming communications and enabling the user to selectively permit or reject communication requests based on user preference. Regarding claim 18, Canter discloses that the first mobile device (or smart phone) includes at least one scanning device comprising at least one of a camera, an RFID tag, or RFID reader (paragraph 13, line 8: “allow a customer to scan that code using a smart phone camera”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Moulin et al. (US 2014/0266626), Nidamarthi et al. (US 8,444,048), Tung (US 2011/0280239), Johnston et al. (US 2020/0084593) and Tagare et al. (US 2023/0053216) . Regarding claim 19, the combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin, Nidamarthi, Tung and Johnston fails to disclose that the communication between the first mobile device and the second mobile device comprises at least one of an audio call, a video call, or messaging. However, in an analogous art, Tagare discloses that a communication between the first mobile device (corresponding to a first UE) and the second mobile device (corresponding to a second UE) comprises at least one of an audio call, a video call, or messaging (paragraph 48, lines 3-4: “a first UE and a second UE may communicate one or more configuration messages to establish … a video call between the first UE and second UE.”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin, Nidamarthi, Tung and Johnston and Tung by incorporating this feature taught in Tagare for the purpose of providing the convenience of real-time and visual interaction for the users of the first and second mobile devices . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canter (US 2013/0035787) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2016/0155112) and Hessler (US 2015/0244699), and further in view of Killian et al. (US 8,159,329), Moulin et al. (US 2014/0266626), Nidamarthi et al. (US 8,444,048), Tung (US 2011/0280239), Johnston et al. (US 2020/0084593) and Farkash et al. (US 2016/0379010) . Regarding claim 20, the combination of Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin, Nidamarthi, Tung and Johnston fails to disclose masking identifying data associated with at least one of the first mobile device and the second mobile device. However, Farkash discloses masking identifying data associated with at least one of a first mobile device and a second mobile device (claim 1, line 1: “masking data in a software application associated with a mobile computing device”). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Canter, Phillips, Hessler, Killian, Moulin, Nidamarthi, Tung and Johnston by incorporating this feature taught in Farkash for the purpose of protecting privacy and preventing unauthorized access or tracking by concealing identifying information associated with the mobile device . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Klatsmanyi et al. (US 2006/0158310) discloses a mobile tag reader that reports accessed tag information to a wireless access point. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM BHATTACHARYA whose telephone number is (571)272-7917. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9-5:30. 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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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. /SAM BHATTACHARYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 2 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 3 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 4 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 5 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 6 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 7 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 8 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 9 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 10 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 11 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 12 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 13 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 14 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 15 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 16 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 17 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 19 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 20 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 21 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 22 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/518,128 Page 23 Art Unit: 2646