DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Applicant filed the Request for Continued Examination on 05/15/2026. Claims 1-3, 11, and 13 are amended. Claim 12 is canceled. Claims 1-11 and 13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-11 and 13 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.
Lack of antecedent basis
5. Claims 1, 11, and 13 recite the limitation “said area” in paragraph starting with “determining…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Examiner suggests, perhaps the applicant was referring to “a physical area”.
6. Claims 1, 11, and 13 recite the limitation “the communication connection”, in paragraph starting with “receiving…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Examiner suggests, perhaps the applicant was referring to “a contactless communication connection”.
7. Claims 2-10 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
8. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
9. Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
10. In the instant case, claims 1, 11, and 13 are directed to a “method, communicating object, and non-transitory computer-readable information medium for contactless communication between a communicating object and a communication device”.
11. Claim 1 recites “accessing resource in a particular location”. Specifically, claim 1 recites “establishing a… connection between … wherein the establishing is implemented … which is located in a physical area, and comprises: autonomously executing the following: determining an item of information in relation to a use context … and a location associated with … associated with said area; receiving … a pairing request … from … associated with said area in order to establish the communication connection with … wherein the pairing request … identifies …; checking whether … in the pairing request … corresponds to … associated with the area and whether the location associated with … associated with the area corresponds to the location of … in the area; and based on a result of the checking, executing a pairing action with … using … by the received pairing request … being associated with …; and after executing the pairing action with … establishing the … connection between …”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
12. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “a contactless communication connection”, “a communicating object”, “a communication device”, “a pairing device”, “a pairing request signal”, and “a data network” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. And, with respect to “receiving by the communicating object a pairing request signal from the pairing device associated with said area in order to establish the communication connection with the communication device, wherein the pairing request signal identifies a pairing device” is simply transmitting data, “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
13. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of accessing resource in a particular location using computer technology (e.g., the processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
14. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
15. Claims 11 and 13 also recite “accessing resource in a particular location”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial or legal interactions) and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
16. As in the case of claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claims 11 and 13 such as “a communicating object”, “a communication device”, “at least one processor”, “at least one non-transitory computer readable medium”, “a contactless communication connection”, “a pairing device”, “a pairing request signal”, “a data network”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable information medium” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “receiving a pairing request signal from the pairing device associated with said area in order to establish the communication connection with the communication device, wherein the pairing request signal identifies a pairing device” is simply transmitting data, “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
17. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of accessing resource in a particular location using computer technology (e.g., the processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
18. Hence, claims 11 and 13 are not patent eligible.
19. The following dependent claims recent additional elements not addressed above:
claims 5 and 10 recite “a message-transmitting device”;
claim 7 recites “at least one sensor”; and
claim 9 recites “a memory”.
When considered individually, and as a whole, each of these additional elements amount to merely "apply it", as they are merely applying the abstract idea to the technical environment of the message-transmitting device, the at least one sensor, and the memory.
Dependent claims 2-10 merely expand upon the abstract ideas of the independent claim 1, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Conclusion of 35 USC §101
20. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
21. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Claim 1-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US12317393B2 to Hagerlag et al. in view of US8112066B2 to Ben Ayed.
26. As per claim 1:
Haverlag et al. discloses the following limitations:
establishing a contactless communication connection between a communicating object and a communication device, wherein the establishing is implemented by the communicating object, which is located in a physical area, and comprises (Col.9, 10-13; col.3, lines 36-38; discloses establishing a wireless (BLE / Zigbee) contactless connection between the node (communicating object) and the network/commissioning device; node is located in a physical area where the commissioning device operates, wherein the commissioning device acts as a pairing intermediary to the operational network)
autonomously executing the following (Col.3, lines 20-24; col.10, lines 8-10; discloses that the node autonomously detects beacons, computes proximity, updates outgoing beacons, and increases beacon rate when threshold is met, without user intervention)
determining an item of information in relation to a use context of the communicating object and a location associated with a pairing device associated with said area (Col.4, lines 37-39, 49-52; discloses that the node determines an item of information (proximity indicator / RSSI / LQI) relating to the location of the commissioning device (pairing device) associated with the area where the node is being commissioned)
receiving by the communicating object a pairing request signal from the pairing device associated with said area in order to establish the communication connection with the communication device, wherein the pairing request signal identifies a pairing device; (Col.9, lines 46-48; col.4, lines 62-64; discloses that the node receives beacons (pairing request signals) from the commissioning device (pairing device) that identify the commissioning device, in order to initiate the commissioning to the network communication device)
based on a result of the checking, executing a pairing action with the communication device using a data network via the pairing device identified by the received pairing request signal, said communication device being associated with the identified pairing device; (Col.11, lines 62-65; col/line 6/66-7/3 discloses that based on the proximity-check result, a pairing/commissioning action is executed with the network (communication device) via the commissioning device (pairing device) using the network data path, wherein the commissioning device is associated with the network)
after executing the pairing action with the communication device, establishing the contactless communication connection between the communicating object and the communication device (Col.1, lines 44-46; col.11, lines 15-20; discloses that once commissioned, the node establishes its operational contactless wireless (Zigbee/Thread/Mesh) connection within the network communication device).
Haverlag et al. does not disclose, however, Ben Ayed, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
checking whether the pairing device identified in the pairing request signal corresponds to the pairing device associated with the area and whether the location associated with the pairing device associated with the area corresponds to the location of the communicating object in the area (Col.17, lines 64-67; col.12, lines 20-23; discloses checking that the requesting pairing device identity (Bluetooth address) corresponds to the stored/expected pairing device, and proximity (within Bluetooth range) reflects the location match)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method for authorizing a Near Field communication (NFC) payment transaction comprising the steps of establishing a two-way secure wireless connection between a first mobile device having an NFC function and a second mobile device of Ben Ayed (‘066, col.4, lines 30-34) with teaching of Haverlag et al. for providing a mechanism related to an improved method to enable proximity-based commissioning wherein the goal is achieved by a node and commissioning device (‘393, col.2, lines 55-59) for pairing devices and monitoring the device by obtaining the BLUETOOTH address of the device after successful pairing the system for NFC authentication (‘066, col.12, line 20; col.17, lines 64-67).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 11 Haverlag et al. additionally discloses the following limitations:
at least one processor (Col.13, lines 9-10; discloses a node having a controller/processor)
at least one non-transitory computer readable medium (Col.17, lines 7-11; discloses non-transitory CRM with instructions for node processor)
As per claim 13 Haverlag et al. additionally discloses the following limitations:
a one non-transitory computer-readable information medium (Col.17, lines 7-11; discloses non-transitory CRM with instructions for node processor)
at least one processor (Col.13, lines 9-10; discloses a node having a controller/processor)
27. As per claim 2:
Haverlag et al. discloses the following limitations:
comparing information, including said item of information in relation to the use context of the communicating object and data in relation to said location associated with said pairing device, with second reference information that represents a pairing situation of the communicating object as being valid, (Col.15, lines 34-44; discloses comparing received location-related proximity indicator with a stored second predefined threshold reference representing a valid commissioning (pairing) situation)
at an end of said comparison, establishing that there is a match between the first information and the second information. (Col.11, lines 59-63; discloses that at the end of the threshold comparison, a match (close enough) is established and commissioning proceeds)
28. As per claim 3:
Haverlag et al. discloses the following limitations:
combining said item of information in relation to the use context of the communicating object and data in relation to said location associated with said pairing device, (Col.6, lines 40-43, 62-64; discloses combining two pieces of information (node-measured and device-measured proximity) via weighted combination to produce a single indicator)
obtaining a score representative of a result of the combination, (Col.15, lines 36-40; col.14, lines 55-56; discloses that registered proximity indicator is a computed score from the combination of multiple proximity measurements)
comparing the obtained score with a threshold (Col.12, lines 50-52; discloses that a score (registered proximity indicator) is expressly compared to a predefined threshold)
depending on the result of the comparison, activating the reception of the pairing request signal (Col.3, lines 27-32; discloses reception/transmission of pairing-related beacons is activated/increased depending on whether the comparison threshold is met)
29. As per claim 4:
Haverlag et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the item of information in relation to the use context of the communicating object is representative of an environment in which the communicating object is located or contains at least one operating datum in relation to the communicating object (Col/line 8/65-9/1; col.12, lines 19-21; discloses using context (home automation / lighting environment) and operating datum (proximity))
30. As per claim 5:
Haverlag et al. discloses the following limitations:
comprising receiving the item of use context information in a message received by the communicating object from the pairing device associated with said area or from a message-transmitting device located in said environment, said item of information indicating a location close to the communicating object.(Col.16, lines 21-23; col.3, lines 21-24; discloses that the node receives messages (beacons) from the commissioning device (pairing device) carrying information indicating proximity (a location close to the node))
31. As per claim 6:
Haverlag et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the item of use context information representative of an environment in which the communicating object is located comprises a geolocation datum in relation to the communicating object with respect to the pairing device associated with said area (Col.4, lines 49-52; col.7, lines 47-48; discloses the geolocation datum (proximity / RSSI / LQI) of node with regard to commissioning device)
32. As per claim 7:
Haverlag et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the item of use context information representative of an environment in which the communicating object is located contains a datum coming from at least one sensor belonging to the communicating object. (Col.3, lines 36-38; col.1, lines 55-57; discloses that the node may itself be or include a sensor producing context data)
33. As per claim 8:
Haverlag et al. does not disclose, however, Ben Ayed, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the item of information in relation to the use context of the communicating object contains at least one operating datum in relation to the communicating object, and wherein the at least one operating datum in relation to the communicating object is a current operating parameter recorded by the communicating object or an element of a history of the communications or transactions carried out by the communicating object. (Col.12, lines 25-29; discloses recording current operating parameters (operation hours/days, credit balance, etc.) and a transaction history (credit amount adjusted per NFC payment))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method for authorizing a Near Field communication (NFC) payment transaction comprising the steps of establishing a two-way secure wireless connection between a first mobile device having an NFC function and a second mobile device of Ben Ayed (‘066, col.4, lines 30-34) with teaching of Haverlag et al. for providing a mechanism related to an improved method to enable proximity-based commissioning wherein the goal is achieved by a node and commissioning device (‘393, col.2, lines 55-59) for storing user data such as credit amount, credit limit, password, private key, authentication parameter, personal info, biometric info, operation hours, operation days, buzzer type, buzzer volume, buzzer duration, and alarm type (‘066, col.12, line 25-29).
34. As per claim 9:
Haverlag et al. does not disclose, however, Ben Ayed, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the location associated with the identified pairing device is determined from a memory of the communicating object (Col.17, lines 65-67; col.24, 3-6; discloses storing in memory the paired-device identifier and last-known geolocation associated with the paired device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method for authorizing a Near Field communication (NFC) payment transaction comprising the steps of establishing a two-way secure wireless connection between a first mobile device having an NFC function and a second mobile device of Ben Ayed (‘066, col.4, lines 30-34) with teaching of Haverlag et al. for providing a mechanism related to an improved method to enable proximity-based commissioning wherein the goal is achieved by a node and commissioning device (‘393, col.2, lines 55-59) for pairing devices and monitoring the device by obtaining the BLUETOOTH address of the device after successful pairing the system for NFC authentication, storing the GPS information representing the last known position of the vehicle and over-writing old positions with new GPS position (‘066, col.17, lines 65-67; col.24, 3-6).
35. As per claim 10:
Haverlag et al. discloses the following limitations:
wherein the location associated with said pairing device is determined from a content of a message received from said pairing device or from a message-transmitting device located in an environment of the communicating object (Col.3, lines 20-24; discloses a location /proximity of the commissioning device (pairing device) is determined from the content (signal properties) of beacons received from it)
Response to Arguments
36. After careful consideration of applicant arguments, the examiner finds them to be not persuasive. Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected.
Rejection under 35 USC § 101
37. Applicant is of the opinion that “claim 1 is directed to how the communicating object establishes a connection with another device and not what the connection is used for. Claim 1 is directed only to technical limitations associated with establishing the connection”.
Examiner respectfully agrees.
Applicant admits that “the communicating object establishes a connection” (e.g., accessing) “with another device” (e.g., resource) and as claim 1 recites “establishing … in a physical area…” (e.g., in a particular location). Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial interactions)
38. Applicant is of the opinion that “[e]ven if claim 1 did recite an abstract idea, claim 1 integrates such an abstract idea into a practical application”, and describes claimed invention’s features “Claim 1 relates to a method of establishing a contactless communication connection
between a communicating object (such as a car, a smartphone, or a connected watch) and a
communication device. The innovation is based on autonomous and secure device pairing, relying on detection of a usage context and a precise location of the object within a defined physical area. The communicating object only pairs with the communication device if the context and location conditions are met”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mentioned above the elements are performed by using the computer components. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. An ordered combination of the limitations – determining an item of information in relation to a use context …; receiving … a pairing request signal … to establish the communication connection with the communication device…; checking whether the pairing device identified in the pairing request signal …; and based on a result of the checking, executing a pairing action with the communication device …; and after executing the pairing action … establishing the contactless communication connection between the communicating object and the communication device – merely implement an abstract idea (commercial interactions) using the additional elements such as the one or more computer processors. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Rejection under 35 USC § 112
39. The rejection of claim 14 under 112(b) “Unclear scope” due to claim’s cancellation is withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 USC § 103
40. Applicant argues that prior art references Crowe et al. and Berger do not teach or suggest the amended claims limitations.
Applicant arguments are no longer applicable because they are moot in light of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
41. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20190220850A1 – Crowe et al. – Discloses systems and methods for pairing an electronic wallet for a consumer with a service provider, wherein method includes receiving, by a computing device, a request to pair the electronic wallet with the service provider where the electronic wallet is associated with an account and where the account is associated with a user.
US20170032337A1 – Berger – Discloses systems and methods for pairing of transaction partners using associated data and identifiers, wherein a user may engage in a transaction with a merchant, where the merchant may generate an invoice for the transaction using a merchant device.
US20140180777A1 – Moshrefi et al. – Discloses a method and apparatus for improved approaches for pairing of a POS system and mobile device, wherein determining, by a POS system, a proximity of a physical location of a mobile device to an access point associated with the POS system, wherein the mobile device is configured to connect to the access point and to initiate establishment of a communication session over a service provider network.
US20150249913A1 – Hua et al. – Discloses methods and systems for pairing communication instruments wherein to initiate pairing, at least one user waves a device at a location and based on the location, a service provider determines and provides the user who waved the device a list of other communication instruments in the area that the user may want to be paired with.
US11871237B1 – Han et al. – Discloses system and method for pairing a payment object reader with a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, wherein determining, by a wireless transceiver, a first value of signal strength corresponding to a current position of the payment object reader and a second value of signal strength corresponding to a new position of the payment object reader.
US20150126109A1 – Keshavdas et al. – Discloses a mobile device for performing wireless communication, a microprocessor for operating said mobile device, a near field communications (NFC) system, wherein NFC system for receiving or transmitting signals with an NFC capable device, and a pairing system implemented in the microprocessor for pairing one NFC capable device with another NFC capable device.
42. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/ Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights