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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 2/11/2026.
In instant Amendment, claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17 and 19 have been amended; claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 are withdrawn as the claims have been amended
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 with respect to the Claim Interpretation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner notes the term “encryptor”, “embedder”, “decoder” and “user access component” are found to be generic placeholders that are modified by function language, and further these terms are not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The examiner disagrees that each of the terms, i.e., encryptor, embedder, decoder, and user access component have a reasonably well understood meaning in the relevant arts. The examiner respectfully notes these terms do not have sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant Argues: The Examiner cites Solomon at paragraph [0032] for the limitation of "embedding the encrypted data stream in an FM (Frequency Modulated) radio signal." However, Solomon [0032] states: "Although not discussed in detail, in order to minimize piracy there preferably should be several encryption and data scrambling algorithms embedded in the system." This passage describes encryption algorithms being embedded in "the system"-that is, the hardware and software infrastructure-not embedding an encrypted data stream within an FM radio signal. The claim language requires "embedding the encrypted data stream in an FM (Frequency Modulated) radio signal," which is fundamentally different from embedding algorithms in system hardware. The Examiner has conflated two distinct concepts. As such, the Examiner's Mapping of "Embedding" is Erroneous.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that [0032] of Solomon discusses use of encryption and data scrambling algorithms. The examiner respectfully notes that [0099] of Solomon discusses - Both video and activation code information received by the EDS 106 are transmitted to satellite 114 which relays the encrypted data to a plurality of FM radio stations 120. Further details of AAS 104 are set forth and discussed with respect to FIG. 5. Each FM radio station 120 may include a satellite receiver 122 for receiving encrypted movies from satellite 114, a processor system 124 for processing encrypted movies for rebroadcast on FM subcarrier channels (which may typically now be under-utilized or not used at all)... The encrypted movies are re-broadcast by FM transmitter 126 on a non-real time low-data rate, for example, on the order of 50 kbps/sec or less. The examiner notes the processing of encrypted movies for rebroadcast on FM subcarrier channels reads on “embedding the encrypted data stream in an FM (Frequency Modulated) radio signal.” The examiner notes by going from satellite to FM requires the encrypted movie to be processed “embedded” to a FM signal for rebroadcast. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Amended claim 1 now recites "wherein the embedding comprises integrating the encrypted data stream with other FM broadcast content using multiplexing or a subcarrier of the FM radio signal."
Neither Solomon nor Hellman teaches or suggests this specific embedding technique. Solomon describes transmitting encrypted movies via satellite to FM radio stations, which then rebroadcast on FM subcarrier channels. However, Solomon does not teach integrating an encrypted data stream with other FM broadcast content using multiplexing or a subcarrier in the manner claimed. Hellman is directed to a content distribution system where content is pre-loaded at radio factories and later unlocked-a fundamentally different architecture that does not involve embedding encrypted data streams within FM broadcast signals.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner finds this argument moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant Argues: Moreover, the Examiner initially cites Solomon [0096] for "encrypting a data stream using an encryption key," then acknowledges on page 6 of the Office Action that "Solomon fails to explicitly disclose encrypting a data stream using an encryption key." This internal inconsistency undermines the rejection.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes Solomon was cite to disclose encrypting a data stream ([0096] - Digitized video information, such as, for example, movies received from source 108, which may include movie studios, are encrypted at the encoding and distribution system (EDS) 106. Video information received at EDS 106 is high quality video information which after transmission to the STB is capable of reconstruction and display into a full-length high-resolution movie with complete VCR functionality). The examiner respectfully notes the strikeout was specific to the rejection to show Solomon teaching encrypting a data stream. The examiner relied on Hellman to teach encrypting a data stream using an encryption key (col. 26, lines 64-col. 27, line 5 - Although the preferred embodiment of the present invention uses audio entertainment as discussed above, the invention is applicable to any media, including for example (but not by way of limitation), video (including television and movies)... and col. 29, lines 3-15 - Broadcaster 100 amalgamates content segments 110, encrypts content segments 110 with AES in cipher block chaining mode (described above in detail in the section "Key Distribution Data Rate") to produce encrypted content segments 111, and sends at least a portion of encrypted content segment 111 to one or more radio factories 115, again using any method known in the art for sending information. Because of the extremely high value of the content library consisting of all content segments 110, each AES key is preferably used to encrypt ... and col. 31, lines 15-35 and col. 51, lines 28-31). The examiner respectfully notes that the rejection is clear to what Solomon and Hellman disclose/teach. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Also, the Examiner's stated motivation to combine Hellman with Solomon is "taking advantage of the rapidly decreasing cost of storage to leverage scarcer, more valuable bandwidth" (Hellman, col. 11, lines 40-42). This motivation relates to Hellman's storage-based content distribution model-pre-loading content at factories to reduce bandwidth requirements not to the encryption aspect being borrowed. The logical connection between this motivation and adding AES encryption to Solomon's FM transmission system is tenuous at best. Furthermore, the claimed invention is directed to transmitting security feeds to emergency responders-a purpose entirely different from Solomon's movie distribution system or Hellman's audio entertainment distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art would not look to consumer entertainment distribution systems to solve the problem of secure communication for emergency responders.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation was provided for the use of an encryption key (i.e., Hellman) as the means of encrypting for Solomon. Therefore, the examiner finds this augment not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that, i.e., Solomon and Hellman is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case both Hellman in view of Solomon discuss encrypting and transmission data stream over FM which is what is claimed by claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim have been met by this combination. Therefore, the examiner finds this augment not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 12 as unpatentable over Solomon in view of Hellman, further in view of Weston (US 2009/0036076 A1). The Examiner relies on Weston to teach that "the stream is 'related to' security."
Applicant respectfully submits that Weston does not cure the deficiencies of Solomon and Hellman. Weston describes FM communication for audio signals between a user and a central control station operator in a home security system context. Specifically, Weston [0008] describes "a method of communicating between a base and a remote device in a security system," and Weston [0018] describes two-way audio communication.
This is categorically different from a "security feed" as that term is used in the present application. The specification describes a security feed as mission-critical data transmitted to emergency responders for their emergency response operations. Weston's two-way audio communication within a home security system is not a security feed transmitted to emergency responders.
The Examiner's own characterization-that Weston teaches a stream "related to" security-implicitly acknowledges that Weston does not actually teach a "security feed" as claimed. Being "related to" security is not the same as being a security feed for emergency responders.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., [ as mission-critical data transmitted to emergency responders for their emergency response operations ]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully notes that Weston’s teachings when reasonably construed reads a stream related to security. The examiner respectfully notes that Solomon and Hellman disclose concepts to a feed. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Examiner rejected claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 as unpatentable over Solomon in view of Hellman, further in view of Donahue (US 2016/0323736 A1). Donahue is cited for teaching asymmetric encryption using public/private key pairs.
Applicant respectfully submits that Donahue does not cure the deficiencies of Solomon and Hellman with respect to the independent claims from which claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 depend. As argued above, the combination of Solomon and Hellman does not teach or suggest the limitations recited in amended claims 1 and 11, nor does it teach transmitting a security feed for emergency responders.
Furthermore, while Donahue teaches asymmetric encryption in a general sense, the combination of all four references (Solomon, Hellman, Donahue, and the embedding technique) is not suggested by the prior art. One of ordinary skill would not combine a movie distribution system (Solomon), an audio entertainment pre-loading system (Hellman), and a general asymmetric encryption scheme (Donahue) to arrive at the claimed invention of transmitting encrypted security feeds to emergency responders via FM radio signals using multiplexing or subcarrier embedding.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation was provided for the combination of references and further newly cited reference of Kotani discusses the embedding technique. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 as unpatentable over Solomon in view of Hellman, further in view of Benshetler (US 2014/0195801 A1). Benshetler is cited for teaching that accessing is performed by an authorized emergency responder.
Applicant respectfully submits that Benshetler does not cure the deficiencies of Solomon and Hellman. Benshetler describes Land Mobile Radio (LMR) systems-dedicated two-way radio systems for emergency responder communication. This is architecturally distinct from the claimed invention, which involves embedding encrypted security feeds in FM broadcast signals for reception by emergency responders.
LMR systems are closed, dedicated networks for two-way communication between emergency responders. The claimed invention involves transmission of encrypted security feeds embedded in FM broadcast signals. The Examiner has not explained how one of ordinary skill would combine Benshetler's LMR authentication system with Solomon's consumer-oriented FM broadcast system to arrive at the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation was provided for the combination of references as Benshelter was used to teach the entity accessing. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an encryptor” [to encrypt], “an embedder” [to embed], “a decoder” [to decode] and “a user access component” [to access] in claims 11, 16 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon (US 2003/0070174 A1) in view of Hellman (US 7,840,178 B2) and Kotani (US 2004/0139316 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Solomon discloses a method for securely transmitting data ([0069] - The first exemplary embodiment described herein uses one or more FM subcarrier frequencies associated with radio or TV stations to transmit encrypted high resolution (e.g., VCR quality) video information in non-real time (very low-data rate) to a plurality of receiving units ("set top boxes" (STBs)), the method comprising:
encrypting a data stream ([0096] - Digitized video information, such as, for example, movies received from source 108, which may include movie studios, are encrypted at the encoding and distribution system (EDS) 106. Video information received at EDS 106 is high quality video information which after transmission to the STB is capable of reconstruction and display into a full-length high-resolution movie with complete VCR functionality);
embedding the encrypted data stream in an FM (Frequency Modulated) radio signal. ([0032] - Although not discussed in detail, in order to minimize piracy there preferably should be several encryption and data scrambling algorithms embedded in the system and [0098]-[0099] - Both video and activation code information received by the EDS 106 are transmitted to satellite 114 which relays the encrypted data to a plurality of FM radio stations 120. Further details of AAS 104 are set forth and discussed with respect to FIG. 5. Each FM radio station 120 may include a satellite receiver 122 for receiving encrypted movies from satellite 114, a processor system 124 for processing encrypted movies for rebroadcast on FM subcarrier channels (which may typically now be under-utilized or not used at all)... The encrypted movies are re-broadcast by FM transmitter 126 on a non-real time low-data rate, for example, on the order of 50 kbps/sec or less); and
transmitting the encrypted data stream using the FM radio signal. ([0098]-[0099] - Both video and activation code information received by the EDS 106 are transmitted to satellite 114 which relays the encrypted data to a plurality of FM radio stations 120. Further details of AAS 104 are set forth and discussed with respect to FIG. 5. Each FM radio station 120 may include a satellite receiver 122 for receiving encrypted movies from satellite 114, a processor system 124 for processing encrypted movies for rebroadcast on FM subcarrier channels (which may typically now be under-utilized or not used at all)... The encrypted movies are re-broadcast by FM transmitter 126 on a non-real time low-data rate, for example, on the order of 50 kbps/sec or less);
wherein the embedding comprises integrating the encrypted data stream with... FM broadcast... using multiplexing or a subcarrier of the FM radio signal ([0099] - The encrypted movies are re-broadcast by FM transmitter 126 on a non-real time low-data rate, for example, on the order of 50 kbps/sec or less. It will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that throughput on any one sub channel may be increased, depending on the sophistication of the data transmission algorithms used. On the other hand more than one sub carrier could be utilized at a given FM station to also increase the throughput and [0103] and [0115] - In operation, and as illustrated in the exemplary flow chart of FIG. 4, encrypted video information is broadcast on FM-subcarrier channels via FM transmitter 126 as discussed above).
Solomon fails to explicitly disclose encrypting a data stream using an encryption key...; [and]
wherein the embedding comprises integrating the encrypted data stream with other FM broadcast content using multiplexing or a subcarrier of the FM radio signal.
However, in an analogous art, Hellman teaches encrypting a data stream using an encryption key (col. 26, lines 64-col. 27, line 5 - Although the preferred embodiment of the present invention uses audio entertainment as discussed above, the invention is applicable to any media, including for example (but not by way of limitation), video (including television and movies)... and col. 29, lines 3-15 - Broadcaster 100 amalgamates content segments 110, encrypts content segments 110 with AES in cipher block chaining mode (described above in detail in the section "Key Distribution Data Rate") to produce encrypted content segments 111, and sends at least a portion of encrypted content segment 111 to one or more radio factories 115, again using any method known in the art for sending information. Because of the extremely high value of the content library consisting of all content segments 110, each AES key is preferably used to encrypt ... and col. 31, lines 15-35 and col. 51, lines 28-31)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hellman to the stream of Solomon to include encrypting a data stream using an encryption key
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hellman to Solomon to do so as it provides / allows taking advantage of the rapidly decreasing cost of storage ... storage to leverage scarcer, more valuable bandwidth (Hellman, col. 11, lines 40-42).
Further, in an analogous art, Kotani teaches wherein the embedding comprises integrating the encrypted data stream with other FM broadcast content using multiplexing or a subcarrier of the FM radio signal ([0150] - The computer of the FM broadcast station converts the electronic certificate and the encrypted software and message digest into broadcast data according to DARC standard, and multiplexes FM music data and broadcast data by FM multiplex broadcasting multiplexer circuit (not shown). These data are FM-modulated by an FM modulation oscillator and broadcasted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kotani to the stream of Solomon and Hellman to include wherein the embedding comprises integrating the encrypted data stream with other FM broadcast content using multiplexing or a subcarrier of the FM radio signal
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kotani to Solomon and Hellman to do so as it provides / allows to ensure security [of] receiving [data] (Kotani, [0010]).
Regarding Claim 3;
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani discloses the method of claim 1.
Solomon further discloses wherein the FM radio signal comprises other FM content ([0094] - Generally, an FM signal includes more bandwidth than is required to send a high fidelity signal. Typically, an FM station is allowed about 100 kHz of bandwidth, and stations are spaced 200 kHz apart, and the frequency response extends only up to 15 kHz, thus leaving unused bandwidth. FCC regulations allow "Subsidiary Communications Authorization" (SCA), also generally referred to as "Selective Call Acceptance" or "Subsidiary Communications Service" (SCS), frequencies to carry a multitude of signals, both digital and analog, at any frequency and bandwidth, so long it does not affect the main channel of transmission or extend the bandwidth of the FM station beyond the 100 kHz allocation)
Regarding Claim 4;
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani disclose the method of claim 1.
Hellman further teaches wherein the data stream comprises a symmetric key to decrypt a security feed (col. 51, lines 44-57 - Rather, once a key is input to key port 710, it is stored in a key register 716, internal to AES engine 700 and which can only be read by AES engine 700 when instructed to decrypt a 128-bit ciphertext block by an instruction input to instruction port 720 and col. 55, lines 58-64 - Any authentication technique known in the art can be used to protect both playlists 112 and content segments 110, including for example: Authentication based on digital signatures can use NIST's aforementioned FIPSPUB 186-2 "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)." Authentication based on a conventional (symmetric) cryptosystem such as NIST's AES or DES can use NIST's "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: The CMAC Mode for Authentication" described in NIST's Special Publication 800-38B by Morris Dworkin).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Hellman to Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 6;
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani disclose the method of claim 1.
Hellman further teaches receiving the FM radio signal (col. 31, lines 52-col. 32, line 4); decoding the encrypted data stream embedded in the FM radio signal using a decryption key (col. 32, lines 26-37 - For example, as described later in more detail, cryptoprocessor 235 stores content encrypting keys so that cryptoprocessor 235 can decrypt encrypted content segments 111 and thereby reproduce content segments 110 which can be played by playback device 120); and accessing the data stream (col. 32, lines 26-37 - For example, as described later in more detail, cryptoprocessor 235 stores content encrypting keys so that cryptoprocessor 235 can decrypt encrypted content segments 111 and thereby reproduce content segments 110 which can be played by playback device 120).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Hellman to Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 10;
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani discloses the method of claim 6.
Hellman further teaches wherein the receiving, the decoding and the accessing is performed on a mobile device (FIG. 1 – PBD 120 and col. 60, lines 64-col. 61, line 2 - In yet another embodiment, the playback device is portable and can be moved from home to car to personal accessory (e.g., worn on a belt), obviating the need to transfer music between the playback device and the user's iPod or MP3 player, since the playback device serves both purposes).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Hellman to Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, 13, 14, 16, and 20; claim(s) 11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 is/are directed to a/an system associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10. Claim(s) 11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon (US 2003/0070174 A1) in view of Hellman (US 7,840,178 B2) and Kotani (US 2004/0139316 A1) and further in view of Weston et al. (US 2009/0036076 A1).
Regarding Claim 2;
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani disclose the method of claim 1.
Solomon and Hellman both further disclose and/or teach wherein the data stream is a [video] feed (Solomon, [0069] and/or Hellman, col. 26, lines 64-col. 27, line 5). Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Hellman to Solomon in view of Hellman, as per claim 1, above.
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani fail to explicitly disclose wherein the ... stream is a security feed.
However, in an analogous art, Weston teaches wherein the ... stream is “related to” security ([0008] - The present invention is a method of communicating between a base and a remote device in a security system. The base receives an audio signal from a telephone network via a panel, and frequency modulates the audio signal at a carrier frequency to generate an FM signal and [0018] - A remote device 60, which may be a console, keypad, key fob, pendent, or other device, receives the FM signal 70 using a similar transmitter/receiver 80. The remote device 60 demodulates the received signal using the demodulator circuit 100 and transmits the resulting audio signal to the user through speaker 120. When the user communicates back to the operator at the central control station, the audio signal from the user is collected by the microphone 110 and is modulated by the modulator circuit 90 (similar to the modulator circuit 90 in the base). The resultant FM signal 70 is transmitted by transmitter/receiver 80 in the remote device 60 and received by the transmitter/receiver 80 in the base 50. The received signal is now demodulated by the base demodulation circuit 100 (similar to remote device 60 demodulator 100) and the resultant audio signal is transmitted to the operator through the telephone line 30. FIG. 1 shows only one remote device, but there may be multiple devices in communication with the base 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Weston to the stream of Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani to include wherein the ... stream is “related to” security....
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Weston to Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani to do so as it provides / allows provide an “security” device that self-adjusts for accurate FM communication (Weston, as gleaned from, [0006]).
Regarding Claim(s) 12; claim(s) 12 is/are directed to a/an system associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 2. Claim(s) 12 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 2, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon (US 2003/0070174 A1) in view of Hellman (US 7,840,178 B2) and Kotani (US 2004/0139316 A1)and further in view of Donahue et al. (US 2016/0323736 A1).
Regarding Claim 5;
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani disclose the method of claim 1.
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani fail to explicitly disclose wherein the encryption key is a public encryption key associated with a user's private key
However, in an analogous art, Donahue teaches wherein the encryption key is a public encryption key associated with a user's private key (FIG. 8 and [0168] - FIG. 8 illustrates an embodiment of an asymmetric encryption scheme 800 where the sender comprises the receiver's public key and the receiver comprises the receiver's private key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Donahue to the encryption key of Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani to include wherein the encryption key is a public encryption key associated with a user's private key.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Donahue to Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani to do so as it provides / allows for secure communication over one or more preferred channels. (Donahue, [0157]).
Regarding Claim 9;
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani disclose the method of claim 6.
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani fail to explicitly disclose wherein the decryption key is a private key of a user associated with the encryption key.
However, in an analogous art, Donahue teaches wherein the decryption key is a private key of a user associated with the encryption key. (FIG. 8 and [0168] - FIG. 8 illustrates an embodiment of an asymmetric encryption scheme 800 where the sender comprises the receiver's public key and the receiver comprises the receiver's private key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Donahue to the decryption key of Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani to include wherein the decryption key is a private key of a user associated with the encryption key.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Donahue to Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani to do so as it provides / allows for secure communication over one or more preferred channels. (Donahue, [0157]).
Regarding Claim(s) 15 and 19; claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are directed to a/an system associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 5 and 9. Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 5 and 9, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon (US 2003/0070174 A1) in view of Hellman (US 7,840,178 B2) and Kotani (US 2004/0139316 A1) and further in view of Weston et al. (US 2009/0036076 A1) and Benshetler et al. (US 20140195801 A1).
Regarding Claim 7;
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani disclose the method of claim 6.
Solomon further discloses wherein the data stream comprises a [video] feed and [to] access the [video] feed at a ... device (Solomon, [0069]).
Hellman both further teaches wherein the data stream comprises a [video] feed and [to] access the [video] feed at a mobile device (Hellman, col. 24, lines 65 – mobile playback devices and col. 26, lines 64-col. 27, line 5).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Hellman to Solomon in view of Hellman, as per claim 1, above.
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani fail to explicitly disclose wherein the ... stream comprises a security ... and the accessing is performed by an authorized emergency responder to access the security ......
However, in an analogous art, Weston teaches wherein the ... stream is “related to” security/access the security ([0008] - The present invention is a method of communicating between a base and a remote device in a security system. The base receives an audio signal from a telephone network via a panel, and frequency modulates the audio signal at a carrier frequency to generate an FM signal and [0018] - A remote device 60, which may be a console, keypad, key fob, pendent, or other device, receives the FM signal 70 using a similar transmitter/receiver 80. The remote device 60 demodulates the received signal using the demodulator circuit 100 and transmits the resulting audio signal to the user through speaker 120. When the user communicates back to the operator at the central control station, the audio signal from the user is collected by the microphone 110 and is modulated by the modulator circuit 90 (similar to the modulator circuit 90 in the base). The resultant FM signal 70 is transmitted by transmitter/receiver 80 in the remote device 60 and received by the transmitter/receiver 80 in the base 50. The received signal is now demodulated by the base demodulation circuit 100 (similar to remote device 60 demodulator 100) and the resultant audio signal is transmitted to the operator through the telephone line 30. FIG. 1 shows only one remote device, but there may be multiple devices in communication with the base 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Weston to the stream of Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani to include wherein the ... stream is “related to” security/access the security....
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Weston to Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani to do so as it provides / allows provide an “security” device that self-adjusts for accurate FM communication (Weston, as gleaned from, [0006]).
However, in an analogous art, Benshetler teaches wherein the accessing is performed by an authorized emergency responder ([0003] - Land Mobile Radio (LMR) systems are deployed by organizations requiring instant communication between geographically dispersed and mobile personnel. Typical users of LMR systems include police departments, fire departments, medical personnel, EMS, and the military and [0014] - Authenticated sites are provided with a secret session key to encrypt and decrypt messages in order to communicate with other sites in the LMR system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Benshetler to the accessing of Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani and Weston to include wherein the accessing is performed by an authorized emergency responder.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Benshetler to Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani and Weston to do so as it provides / allows secured communication is provided by encrypting messages thereby preventing unauthorized sites or other elements gain access to the LMR system (Benshetler, as gleaned from, [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding Claim 8;
Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani and Weston and Benshetler disclose the method of claim 7.
Benshetler further teaches wherein the authorized emergency responder comprises one or more of a firefighter, a policeperson or an Emergency Medical Technician. ([0003] - Land Mobile Radio (LMR) systems are deployed by organizations requiring instant communication between geographically dispersed and mobile personnel. Typical users of LMR systems include police departments, fire departments, medical personnel, EMS, and the military and [0014] - Authenticated sites are provided with a secret session key to encrypt and decrypt messages in order to communicate with other sites in the LMR system).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Benshetler to Solomon in view of Hellman and Kotani and Weston and Benshetler, as per claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim(s) 17 and 18; claim(s) 17 and 8 is/are directed to a/an system associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 7 and 8. Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 7 and 8, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARI L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm (MDT).
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/KARI L SCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights