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 action is in response to the filing of 5/20/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim construction/interpretation: Claim 1 [method claim] recites the following limitation;
“responsive to the identification value matching the assigned identification value, transitioning, by a processing device, a network interface to an active state,
wherein the signal is a first signal, and wherein the assigned identification value is stored into a data store responsive to receiving a command via a second signal that authorizes programming the assigned identification value.”
These are contingent/conditional limitations. These limitations are not positively recited in the claim(s) and are thus only executed [or performed or implemented], when the condition is true/met.
For instance, first the step of transitioning a network interface to an active state, is only performed upon identification value matching the assigned identification value; otherwise this step is not performed, and the prior art is not required to teach this elements when the condition is not met.
Dependent claims 2 and 6 are related to the conditional element and thus are not required to be performed, and taught by the prior art.
Second, step of storing assigned identification value i into a data store, is only performed when receiving a command is satisfied, or this step is not performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a process/method claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “comparing the identification value to an assigned identification value” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “processing device” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (processing device) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “receiving a signal comprising an identification value” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity); and the additional element “responsive to the identification value matching the assigned identification value, transitioning, by a processing device, a network interface to an active state, wherein the signal is a first signal, and wherein the assigned identification value is stored into a data store responsive to receiving a command via a second signal that authorizes programming the assigned identification value” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “network interface” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (network communication) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to activate network interface.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “receiving a signal comprising an identification value” and “responsive to the identification value matching the assigned identification value, transitioning, by a processing device, a network interface to an active state” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (network communication) using a generic computer.
Other independent claim: Claim 15 [machine claim] recite similar claim language and thus is/are rejected for the same reasons as that of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 16-20 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a system/machine claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “compare the identification value to an assigned identification value, wherein the assigned identification value comprises a plurality of assigned identification values, and wherein to compare the identification value to the assigned identification value the processing device is to compare the identification value to each of the plurality of assigned identification values” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “memory” and “processing device” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (comprising processor and memory) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “receive a signal comprising an identification value” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity); and the additional element “responsive to the identification value matching the assigned identification value, transition a network interface to an active state” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “network interface” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (network communication) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to activate network interface.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “receive a signal comprising an identification value” and “transition a network interface to an active state” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (network communication) using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 9-14 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6,8-13,15-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,643. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present application claims is/are broader to all that is recited in claims of the US patent 12,010,643. That is, claims 1,8,15 are anticipated by claims 1,7,13 of the US patent 12,010,643.
Present claims
US Patent 12,010,643 claims
A method comprising:
receiving a signal comprising an identification value;
comparing the identification value to an assigned identification value; and
responsive to the identification value matching the assigned identification value, transitioning, by a processing device, a network interface to an active state,
wherein the signal is a first signal, and wherein the assigned identification value is stored into a data store responsive to receiving a command via a second signal that authorizes programming the assigned identification value.
Claims 2-6.
8. A system comprising:
a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to:
receive a signal comprising an identification value;
compare the identification value to an assigned identification value, wherein the assigned identification value comprises a plurality of assigned identification values, and wherein to compare the identification value to the assigned identification value the processing device is to compare the identification value to each of the plurality of assigned identification values; and
responsive to the identification value matching the assigned identification value, transition a network interface to an active state.
Claims 9-13.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to:
receive a signal comprising an identification value;
compare the identification value to an assigned identification value; and
responsive to the identification value matching the assigned identification value, transition, by the processing device, a network interface to an active state, wherein the signal is a first signal, and wherein the processing device is further to store the assigned identification value into a data store responsive to receiving a command via a second signal that authorizes programming the assigned identification value.
Claims 16-19.
1. A method comprising:
receiving a radio frequency identification (RFID) broadcast signal comprising a broadcast identification value;
comparing the broadcast identification value to an assigned identification value; and
responsive to the broadcast identification value matching the assigned identification value, transitioning, by a processing device, a network interface to an active state,
wherein the RFID broadcast signal is a first RFID broadcast signal, and wherein the assigned identification value is stored into a data store responsive to receiving a command via a second RFID broadcast signal that authorizes programming the assigned identification value.
Claims 2-6.
7. A system comprising:
a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to:
receive a radio frequency identification (RFID) broadcast signal comprising a broadcast identification value;
compare the broadcast identification value to an assigned identification value wherein the assigned identification value comprises a plurality of assigned identification values, and wherein to compare the broadcast identification value to the assigned identification value the processing device is to compare the broadcast identification value to each of the plurality of assigned identification values; and responsive to the broadcast identification value matching the assigned identification value, transition a network interface to an active state.
Claims 8-12.
13. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to:
receive a radio frequency identification (RFID) broadcast signal comprising a broadcast identification value;
compare the broadcast identification value to an assigned identification value; and responsive to the broadcast identification value matching the assigned identification value, transition, by the processing device, a network interface to an active state, wherein the RFID broadcast signal is a first RFID broadcast signal, and wherein the processing device is further to store the assigned identification value into a data store responsive to receiving a command via a second RFID broadcast signal that authorizes programming the assigned identification value.
Claims 14-17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Relyea (US 2007/0282881).
Regarding claim 1:
Relyea discloses a method (abstract) comprising:
receiving a signal comprising an identification value (para 51, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {…reading a unique identifier} [reading is equivalent to receiving]);
comparing the identification value to an assigned identification value (para 51 {… reading a unique identifier stored on the token and comparing the stored identifier to an identifier expected to be stored the token…}, [expected is equivalent to assigned value]); see figures; and [Note: the following step/limitation(s) are contingent [see claim construction, interpretation above], and not positively recited, thus not required to be performed. Therefore, this claim is anticipated by the art]
responsive to the identification value matching the assigned identification value, transitioning, by a processing device, a network interface to an active state, wherein the signal is a first signal, and wherein the assigned identification value is stored into a data store responsive to receiving a command via a second signal that authorizes programming the assigned identification value (fig 4-6; para 55; and throughout).
Regarding claim 2,6:
Relyea discloses all of the subject matter as above, and claims 2,6 are further related to contingent steps, and are anticipated as described above for claim 1.
Claim(s) 1-12,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart (US 2006/0255131).
Regarding claim 1:
Stewart discloses a method (abstract; figures) comprising:
receiving a signal comprising an identification value (see para 1, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {Radio Frequency (RF) tag activation…}; figures 1-3; para 31 {reader broadcasts a wake up code…}; para 33 {…receiving the activate command..}; para 116; fig 16 [block 1602,1604]);
comparing the identification value to an assigned identification value (fig 16 [block 1606 matching with stored value]; para 33-35; para 137 {decision 1606 to determine whether the activate code in the activate command matches a stored value}; and see throughout the disclosure); and [Note: the following step/limitation(s) are contingent [see claim construction, interpretation above], and not positively recited, thus not required to be performed. Therefore, this claim is anticipated by the prior art]
responsive to the identification value matching the assigned identification value, transitioning, by a processing device, a network interface to an active state, wherein the signal is a first signal, and wherein the assigned identification value is stored into a data store responsive to receiving a command via a second signal that authorizes programming the assigned identification value (para 84, 115 {pre-programmed activate code}).
Regarding claims 2, and 6:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above, and claims 2,6 are further related to contingent steps, and are anticipated as described above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the signal comprises a plurality of pulses (para 66 [string of pulses]; para 80 [number of pulses]; para 107; 122-128; figures 3,9,15a; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 4:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the identification value is encoded into the signal according to a pulse interval encoding protocol (para 107, para 115 {decodes the incoming data stream and determines if the incoming F2F data encoding matches}; para 122-127; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 5:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the assigned identification value comprises a plurality of assigned identification values, and wherein comparing the identification value to the assigned identification value comprises comparing the identification value to each of the plurality of assigned identification values (figure 16; para 137 {code matches a particular one of the values stored...} [matching with one of values, i.e. compared with plural values]; see throughout).
Regarding claim 8:
Stewart discloses a system (abstract; figures) comprising:
a memory (fig 1, fig 2 [memory 220]); and a processing device (fig 2 [control 204]; para 63-68), operatively coupled to the memory, to:
receive a signal comprising an identification value (para 1; figures 1-3; para 31 {reader broadcasts a wake up code…}; para 33 { receiving the activate command..}; para 116; fig 16 [block 1602,1604]);
compare the identification value to an assigned identification value (fig 16 [block 1606 matching with stored value]; para 33-35; para 137 {decision 1606 to determine whether the activate code in the activate command matches a stored value}), wherein the assigned identification value comprises a plurality of assigned identification values, and wherein to compare the identification value to the assigned identification value the processing device is to compare the identification value to each of the plurality of assigned identification values (para 66 [string of pulses]; para 80 [number of pulses]; para 107; 122-128; figures 3,9,15a; para 84, 115 {pre-programmed activate code}; para 137 {code matches a particular one of the values stored...} [matching with one of values, i.e. compared with plural values]; and see throughout the disclosure); and
responsive to the identification value matching the assigned identification value, transition a network interface to an active state (fig 16 [values matches in 1606, YES then activate in a mode]; para 137 {If the activate code matches a particular one of the values stored in the device, the device activates…}; see fig 17-18; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 9:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above and wherein to transition the network interface to the active state the processing device is to transition the network interface from a dormant state to the active state (fig 16 [1608 hibernate, or activate state]; para 64 [sleeping state]; para 149; and throughout).
Regarding claim 10:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the signal comprises a plurality of pulses (para 66 [string of pulses]; para 80 [number of pulses]; para 107; 122-128; figures 3,9,15a; and see throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 11:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the identification value is encoded into the signal according to a pulse interval encoding protocol (para 107, para 115 {decodes the incoming data stream and determines if the incoming F2F data encoding matches}; para 122-127; and see throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 12:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the signal is a first signal, and wherein the processing device is further to store the assigned identification value into a data store responsive to receiving a command via a second signal that authorizes programming the assigned identification value (para 84, 115 {pre-programmed activate code}; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 7,14:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the signal transmits a plurality of pulses (para 66 [string of reference pulses]; para 80; and throughout).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13,15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (US 2006/0255131) in view of Biswas et al. (US 2022/0374621).
Regarding claim 13:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above except for specifically teaching that the network interface is to communicate with one or more network devices of a mesh network.
However, Biswas in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for radio communication wherein network interface is to communicate with one or more network devices of a mesh network (para 2 [mesh configuration of RFID]; para 34, 35-40; and throughout disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Biswas in Stewart in order to use the communication of the RFID devices in mesh network as connected in vast mesh network communication applications (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 15:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as described above for claims 1,8 except for specifically teaching that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions executed by a processing device.
However, Biswas in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for radio communication wherein non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions (figures; para 52,185) when executed by a processing device perform the functions (fig 2; see para 54; and throughout disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Biswas in Stewart in order to use the software as embodied on computer readable medium that is capable of performing the functions in order to reduce cost and improve the adaptability and flexibility of the system (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 16:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein to transition the network interface to the active state the processing device is to transition the network interface from a dormant state to the active state (fig 16 [1608 hibernate, or activate state]; para 64 [sleeping state]; para 149; and see throughout).
Regarding claim 17:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the signal comprises a plurality of pulses (para 66 [string of pulses]; para 80 [number of pulses]; para 107; 122-128; figures 3,9,15a; and see throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 18:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the identification value is encoded into the signal according to a pulse interval encoding protocol (para 107, para 115 {decodes the incoming data stream and determines if the incoming F2F data encoding matches}; para 122-127; and see throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 19:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the assigned identification value comprises a plurality of assigned identification values, and wherein to compare the identification value to the assigned identification value the processing device is to compare the identification value to each of the plurality of assigned identification values (figure 16; para 137 {code matches a particular one of the values stored...} [matching with one of values, i.e. compared with plural values]; see throughout).
Regarding claim 20:
Stewart discloses all of the subject matter as above wherein the signal transmits a plurality of pulses (para 66 [string of reference pulses]; para 80; and throughout).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kirkeby et al. (US 2021/0392499) discloses a system and method for using secure wireless data devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631