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 (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-3, 17 and 20 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “obtaining, by the collaboration device, the pairing token for the collaboration device” which renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. The specification discloses in Paragraph 54, “as shown, at 308, the digital whiteboard 222 provides a pairing token to the user device 204 via the touch screen 224 and the BAN provided by user device 204 while the user 202 continues to touch the touch screen 224.” For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the claim as “obtaining, by the user device, the pairing token for the collaboration device”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “transmitting the pairing communication is performed by collaboration device”. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation of Claim 3 as “transmitting the pairing communication is performed by the collaboration device”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “storing the identifier for the user obtained during the touch and the privilege information for the another user” which renders the claim indefinite as the scope of the limitation is unclear. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation of Claim 17 as “storing the identifier for the another user obtained during the touch and the privilege information for the another user”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “obtaining, by the collaboration device, the pairing token for the collaboration device” which renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. The specification discloses in Paragraph 54, “as shown, at 308, the digital whiteboard 222 provides a pairing token to the user device 204 via the touch screen 224 and the BAN provided by user device 204 while the user 202 continues to touch the touch screen 224.” For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the claim as “obtaining, by the user device, the pairing token for the collaboration device”.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell et al. US 2018 0352439 A1 (hereinafter “Russell”) in view of Bau et al. US 2016 0259451 A1 (hereinafter “Bau”).
Regarding Claim 1, Russell teaches a method comprising:
upon a touch of a user with a collaboration device, performing, for a user device that provides a body area network for the user (Fig. 2, Page 2, Paragraph 16-17, body-coupled communication system 200, body area network [BAN], personal device 220), a pairing exchange for pairing the user device and the collaboration device, wherein the pairing exchange is facilitated via the body area network and comprises, during the touch of the user with the collaboration device (Page 3, Paragraphs 24-25, capacitive sensor 210 on user device 202, touch interaction from the user), transmitting a user token to the collaboration device (Page 3, Paragraphs 24-25, user credential information);
transmitting a pairing communication to a collaboration service that manages a collaboration session with the collaboration device (Page 2, Paragraph 17, devices 202/220 may be configured to receive and/or transmit any type of radio signals; Page 5, Paragraphs 35-36, authentication of device, connecting to a suitable network over which services can be exchanged; Paragraph 38, Fig. 5, network 302, user of device 220, authentication services, Paragraph 39, credentials provided over BAN, then by way of wireless networks), the pairing communication comprising the user token and a pairing token for the collaboration device (Page 3, Paragraphs 24-25, request includes device identifier, user credential information); and
upon successful authentication of the user by the collaboration service, based on the pairing communication, pairing the user device with the collaboration device (Page 5, Paragraph 38, Paragraph 41, pairing a new device).
Russell fails to fully teach/teach the limitation:
upon successful authentication of the user by the collaboration service, based on the pairing communication, pairing the user device with the collaboration device.
However, Bau further teaches the limitation:
upon successful authentication of the user by the collaboration service, based on the pairing communication, pairing the user device with the collaboration device (Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 56-57, automatic device identification and pairing).
Although Russell addresses the remaining limitations of claim 1, Bau demonstrates the following limitations of a method comprising:
transmitting a pairing communication to a collaboration service that manages a collaboration session with the collaboration device (Bau, Page 5, Paragraph 44, identify device 210 and establish a communication session over any suitable technology; Page 6, Paragraph 60, device sends suitable information to another device [e.g. server]), the pairing communication comprising the user token and a pairing token for the collaboration device (Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 56, authentication may involve loading particular settings or data associated with the device, user coupled to device); and
upon successful authentication of the user by the collaboration service, based on the pairing communication, pairing the user device with the collaboration device (Bau, Page 2, Paragraph 16-17, wearable device 230, capacitively coupled to the user; Page 7, Paragraph 56-57, device identification and pairing; Page 8, Paragraph 59-60, touch-sensitive device, user associated with the event identified).
Bau and Russell are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of establishing communication sessions between identified devices for authenticated users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Russell to incorporate the teachings of Bau upon successful authentication of the user by the collaboration service, based on the pairing communication, pairing the user device with the collaboration device. Doing so would provide an indication of successful authentication of the user to enhance usability of a collaboration system.
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Russell in view of Bau teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pairing exchange further comprises obtaining, by the user device, the pairing token for the collaboration device during the touch of the user with the collaboration device (Russell, Page 3, Paragraphs 24-25, request includes device identifier; Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 57, MAC address) and transmitting the pairing communication is performed by the user device (Russell, Page 5, Paragraphs 35-36, authentication of device, connecting to a suitable network over which services can be exchanged; Bau, Page 5, Paragraph 44, identify device 210 and establish a communication session over any suitable technology; Page 8, Paragraph 60, device sends suitable information to another device [e.g. server]) and does not involve the body area network and the pairing communication further comprises the pairing token (Russell, Page 5, Paragraph 38, Fig. 5, network 302, user of device 220, authentication services, Paragraph 39, credentials provided over BAN, then by way of wireless networks; Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 56, authentication may involve loading particular settings or data associated with the device, user coupled to device).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Russell in view of Bau teaches the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the pairing communication is performed by the collaboration device (Russell, Page 2, Paragraph 17, user device 202 may be configured to receive and/or transmit any type of radio signals; Page 4, Paragraph 27, authentication services; Paragraph 30, network 302 includes the internet over which services can be consumed by a user of device 220; Bau, Page 6, Paragraph 60, server).
Regarding Claim 4, Russel in view of Bau teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
upon successful authentication of the user by the collaboration service, obtaining by the collaboration device, an indication of the successful authentication of the user device for pairing the user device and the collaboration device, wherein the indication comprises the user token (Russell, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 34-35, trigger or context associated with exchanging body area network [BAN] services; Bau, Page 6, Paragraph 49, provide notifications to a user; Page 7, Paragraph 54, device-specific notifications).
Regarding Claim 5, Russell in view of Bau teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising:
storing the user token by the collaboration device (Russell, Page 3, Paragraphs 24-25, request includes device identifier, user credential information; Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 56, authentication may involve loading particular settings or data associated with the device, user coupled to device).
Regarding Claim 6, Russell in view of Bau teaches the method of claim 4. Russell does not teach the method of claim 6. Bau teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the indication further comprises one or more user policies, the one or more user policies enabling at least one of:
one or more privileges that are enabled or disabled for the user for interacting with the collaboration device (Bau, Page 8, Paragraph 63, user functionality determined on authorization); or
unique visual identification of the user for interactions by the user with the collaboration device (Bau, Page 8, Paragraph 63, data specific to user, preferences).
Regarding Claim 19, it differs from Claim 1 only in that one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations to perform the method of Claim 1 (Russell and Bau both teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in Russell, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 19 and Bau, Page 10, Paragraph 74). It recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and Russell in view of Bau discloses them.
Regarding Claim 20, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Russell in view of Bau teaches the media of claim 19, wherein the pairing exchange further comprises obtaining, by the user device, the pairing token for the collaboration device during the touch of the user with the collaboration device (Russell, Page 3, Paragraphs 24-45; Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 57) and transmitting the pairing communication is performed by the user device and does not involve the body area network and the pairing communication further comprises the pairing token (Russell, Page 5, Paragraphs 25-49; Bau, Pages 5, 7-8, Paragraphs 44, 56, 60).
Claims 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Russell as modified by Bau and further in view of Bran et al., U.S. Patent No 11,227,481 (hereinafter “Bran”).
Regarding Claim 7, Russell in view of Bau teaches the method of claim 6, wherein a first privilege of the one or more privileges disables touch interactions by the user with the digital whiteboard from adding or editing content to the digital whiteboard, and a second privilege of the one or more privileges enables touch interactions by the user for manipulating one or views of the digital whiteboard (Russell, Page 5, Paragraph 38, exchanged services; Bau, Page 8, Paragraph 63, user functionality determined on authorization, user-specific settings, preferences and content).
Russell in view of Bau fails to fully teach/teach the limitation:the collaboration device is a digital whiteboard,
However, Bran further teaches the limitation:
the collaboration device is a digital whiteboard (Bran, Col. 3, Lines 12-25, body area network; Col. 4, Lines 23-67, Col. 5, Lines 1-30, digital whiteboard, usage detector, capacitive sensor)
Bran, Bau and Russell are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of implementation of services through sensing and user authorization means. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Russell in view of Bau to incorporate the teachings of Bran in the collaboration device is a digital whiteboard. Doing so would provide enhanced functionality to a collaborative workspace setting utilizing a digital whiteboard in which meeting participants are associated with functional privileges.
Regarding Claim 8, Russell as modified by Bau and further in view of Bran teaches the method of claim 6. Russell does not teach the method of claim 8. Bau in view of Bran teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the collaboration device is a digital whiteboard and at least one user policy of the one or more user policies enables the digital whiteboard to uniquely identify the user for touch interactions by the user with the digital whiteboard (Bau, Page 8, Paragraph 63, data specific to user; Bran, Col. 4, Lines 17-67, Col. 5, Lines 1-30, digital whiteboard, determining proximity of a user to device; Col. 6, Lines 22-39, metadata).
Regarding Claim 9, Russell as modified by Bau and further in view of Bran teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the touch interactions by the user with the digital whiteboard include transmitting the user token to the digital whiteboard by the user device via the body area network during the touch interactions by the user with the digital whiteboard (Russell, Pages 3-4, Paragraph 26, credential information; Paragraph 39, body area network; Bau, Page 8, Paragraph 63, data specific to user; Page 11, Paragraph 78, body area network; Bran, Col. 3, Lines 12-25, body area network; Col. 4, Lines 23-31, whiteboard; Col. 6, Lines 22-39, metadata).
Regarding Claim 10, Russell as modified by Bau and further in view of Bran teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
transmitting by the digital whiteboard to the collaboration service, the user token and data identifying the touch interactions by the user with the digital whiteboard (Russell, Page 2, Paragraph 17, transmitting signals from device 202; Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 26-27, 30, user credential information, authentication services; Bau, Page 8, Paragraph 63, user identity, data associated with touch event; Bran, Col. 6, Lines 22-39, metadata).
Regarding Claim 11, Russell as modified by Bau and further in view of Bran teaches a method comprising:
for a user device that provides a body area network for a user (Russell, Fig. 2, Page 2, Paragraph 16-17, body-coupled communication system 200, body area network, personal device 220), obtaining by the user device via the body area network during a first touch by the user with a collaboration device controller that is to be paired with one or more collaboration devices (Russell, Pages 4-5, Paragraphs 34-35, devices are new to each other; Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 57, device 230 may initiate and/or act as an intermediary for communications between two or more devices; Page 9, Paragraph 68, an application or functionality may require multiple tap events; Bran, Col. 12, Lines 4-18, intermediate electronic device, peripheral electronic device), pairing information for the collaboration device controller (Russell, Page 3, Paragraphs 24-25, request includes device identifier; Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 57, content to transfer to a target device); and
transmitting, during a second touch by the user with a particular collaboration device of the one or more collaboration devices (Bau, Page 9, Paragraph 68, multiple tap events), a pairing request to the particular collaboration device via the body area network (Russell, Page 2, Paragraph 17, device 220 configured to receive and/or transmit any type of radio signals, body area network; Pages 4-5, Paragraph 34-35, triggers, new device authentication), the pairing request comprising the pairing information for the collaboration device controller and an identifier for the user for pairing the collaboration device controller with the particular collaboration device (Russell, Page 3, Paragraphs 24-25, request includes device identifier, user credential information; Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 56, authentication, device data, user coupled to device; Bran, Col. 5, Lines 1-30, digital whiteboard, Col. 6, Lines 22-39, metadata)..
Regarding Claim 12, Russell in view of Bau teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising:
transmitting, by the particular collaboration device, an authentication request to a collaboration service, the authentication request comprising the identifier for the user (Russell, Page 2, Paragraph 17, device 202 configured to transmit/receive signals; Pages 3-4, Fig. 5, Paragraph 24-30, credential information, authentication services, network 302); and
upon successful authentication of the user by the collaboration service, obtaining, by the particular collaboration device, an indication that the user is authorized to pair the collaboration device controller with the particular collaboration device (Bau, Page 6, Paragraph 48, notifications, device and state identification).
Regarding Claim 13, Russell in view of Bau teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising:
upon successful authentication of the user by the collaboration service, obtaining by the user device (Russell, Page 2, Paragraph 17, device 220 configured to transmit/receive signals; Pages 3-4, Fig. 5, Paragraph 24-30, credential information, authentication services, network 302), the indication that the user is authorized to pair the collaboration device controller with the particular collaboration device (Bau, Page 6, Paragraph 49, notifications, device and state identification).
Regarding Claim 14, Russell in view of Bau teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising:
upon obtaining the indication that the user is authorized to pair the collaboration device controller with the particular collaboration device, transmitting, by the particular collaboration device, a pairing request to the collaboration device controller, the pairing request comprising the identifier for the user and device information for the particular collaboration device (Russell, Page 3, Paragraphs 24-25, request includes device identifier, user credential information; Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 56, data associated with the device, user coupled to device).
Regarding Claim 15, Russell in view of Bau teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising:
upon confirming the pairing request with the collaboration service by the collaboration device controller (Bau, Page 5, Paragraph 44, identify device 210 and establish a communication session over any suitable technology; Bau, Page 7, Paragraph 56, authentication; Page 8, Paragraph 60, device sends suitable information to another device [e.g. server]), completing the pairing with the particular collaboration device (Russell, Page 4, Paragraph 30-31, pairing).
Regarding Claim 16, Russell as modified by Bau and further in view of Bran teaches the method of claim 11, following pairing the collaboration device controller with the particular collaboration device, for another user device that provides a body area network for another user, the method further comprising:
obtaining by the collaboration device controller an identifier for the another user via the body area network during a touch by the another user with the collaboration device controller for controlling the particular collaboration device (Russell, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 34-35, trigger, BAN services, devices are new to each other; Bau, Page 8, Paragraph 59, multiple users may interact with a touch-sensitive device; Bran, Col. 12, Lines 4-8, intermediate electronic device to connect to peripheral device, server; Col. 4, Lines 59-67, Col. 5, Lines 1-21, usage detector indication that user touched the device); and
based on confirming via privilege information for the another user that the another user is authorized to access control actions for controlling the particular collaboration device (Russell, Page 5, Paragraph 38, exchanged services; Bau, Page 8, Paragraph 63, identity of a user associated with a touch event may be used to customize a user experience), unlocking, via the collaboration device controller, one or more control actions for the particular collaboration device that can be performed by the another user via the collaboration device controller (Russell, Page 4, Paragraph 30-31; Bran, Col. 9, Lines 57-67, upon reception of utility reset message, enable peripheral device functionality).
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Russell as modified by Bau and further in view of Bran teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising:
based on confirming via privilege information for the another user that the another user is authorized to access control actions for controlling the particular collaboration device (Russell. Page 5, Paragraph 38, exchanged services; Bau, Pages 8-9, Paragraphs 63-64, functionality associated with user identification), storing the identifier for the another user obtained during the touch and the privilege information for the another user (Russell, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 19, memory 206/226 may store content received from other devices, Paragraph 25, credential information; Bau, Page 8, Paragraph 65, storing user information; Bran, Col. 6, Lines 22-28, metadata).
Regarding Claim 18, Russell as modified by Bau and further in view of Bran teaches the method of claim 17. Russell does not teach the method of claim 17. Bau in view of Bran teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising:
monitoring a timer, wherein the timer is restarted each time the another user initiates control of the particular collaboration device via one or more subsequent touches with the collaboration device controller (Bau, Pages 8-9, Paragraph 59, multiple users may interact with a touch-sensitive device; Paragraph 70, timestamp; Bran, Col. 8, Lines 1-38, change status determination unit, second status change, disabling peripheral device functionality); and
upon determining expiration of the timer, removing the unlocking of the one or more control actions for the particular collaboration device that can be performed by the another user via the collaboration device controller (Bau, Pages 8-9, Paragraphs 63-64, functionality associated with user identification; Paragraph 70, timestamp; Bran, Col. 9, Lines 17-28. disable device functionality of further device; Col. 10, Lines 16-33, time since the last time device was used, time reset when device used again before predefined threshold).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLE N DAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu. 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, AKWASI SARPONG can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/GABRIELLE N DAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2681
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 01/07/2026