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 .
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.
Claims 11-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mutz et al (hereinafter Mutz), US-PG-PUB No. 2016/0147988.
Regarding claim 11, Mutz discloses a method for operating a smart mobile device (The method may be conducted by machine, embodied as a mobile telephone, which based on circumstantial evidence (The publication year (2016), and the analogy drawn by Mutz of the mobile phone to a computer in ¶[0067], lines 1-2) is clearly guided towards a smartphone.....¶[0067], line 1-2), the method comprising:
in a locked state of the mobile device (The mobile device may exist in a locked state.....¶[0078], lines 2), in which manual access to a data content thereof is disabled (The locked state prevents access to data by third parties.....¶[0078], lines 2, 13-14), ascertaining, by way of a radio module (A control device integral to the mobile device comprises a UWB radio transceiver.....¶[0091], lines 1-4) whether or not a device that is known to the mobile device (A portable device is identified (thus made known) to the mobile device via signal S1, sent from the portable device.....¶[0099], lines 1-3) is present (The mobile device receives signal S1, thereby also ascertaining presence of the known device.....¶[0073], lines 1-3);
when a presence of the known device is detected, using an ultra-wideband radio connection (¶[0091], lines 1-4) to ascertain whether the known device is present within a predefined distance from the mobile device (The distance between the mobile device and known device is evaluated against a predefined distance DMAX.....¶[0076], lines 1-4; ¶[0077], lines 1-4); and
if the known device is present within the predefined distance, canceling the locked state of the mobile device (The device is unlocked if distance D is less than DMAX.....¶[0077], lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 12, Mutz discloses the method according to claim 11, which comprises using the radio module as an ultra-wideband transceiver (A control device integral to the mobile device comprises a UWB radio transceiver.....¶[0091], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Mutz discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the smart mobile device is a smartphone.
Regarding claim 17, Mutz discloses the method according to claim 11, which comprises ascertaining the distance of the known device based on two-way communication between the mobile device and the known device (Distance between the two devices is calculated based on signal S2 (from the mobile device to the known device as shown in Fig. 2) and signal S1 or S3 (from the known device to the mobile device as shown in Fig. 2).....¶[0076], lines 2-6).
Regarding claim 18, Mutz discloses the method according to claim 11, which comprises sending a request by the known device to cancel the locked state of the mobile device to the mobile device when the known device is within the predefined distance (A signal sent by the known device determined to be within the predefined distance by the mobile device would unlock the mobile device, and is therefore a request to cancel the lock state of the mobile device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutz in view of Mahaffey et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2014/0282877.
Regarding Claim 13, Mutz discloses the method according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the pre-defined distance is predefined on a user-specific basis.
Mahaffey teaches a method wherein a known device unlocks a smart device based on a pre-defined distance, wherein the pre-defined distance is predefined on a user-specific basis (The rule for acceptable proximity (pre-defined distance) is defined by a user…..¶[0160], lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mutz to incorporate the teachings of Mahaffey, and provide wherein the known device is a hearing apparatus. This would provide the benefit of a system wherein various combinations of proximity rules extend the realm of what is possible in authentication, authorization, and changing security and operational settings of devices (Mahaffey, ¶[0016], lines 1-7).
Claims 15-16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutz in view of Hawkins, US-PG-PUB No. 2016/0063847.
Regarding claim 15, Mutz discloses the method according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the known device is a hearing apparatus, instead teaching wherein the known device is a wearable accessory such as a bracelet or watch (¶[0069]).
Hawkins teaches a method wherein a (known) accessory device unlocks a (smart phone) companion device via proximity, wherein the known device may be a hearing apparatus (The accessory device may be a hearing aid (hearing apparatus)…..¶[0024], lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mutz to incorporate the teachings of Hawkins, and provide wherein the known device is a hearing apparatus. This would provide the benefit wherein the known device may be implemented in any wearable article (Hawkins, ¶[0024], lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mutz and Hawkins, as explained above, teach the method according to claim 15, wherein the known device is a hearing aid.
Regarding claim 21, Mutz teaches an apparatus, comprising a radio module configured for an ultra-wideband radio connection (Shown in Fig. 1, portable object (apparatus) (100)) having a first radio module (First transmission member (1).....¶[0075], lines 1-2), and a device with a controller configured to carry out the method according to claim 11 (A controller device (200) is integral to a mobile device and comprises control members for performing calculations and controlling the lock state of the mobile device in response to the calculations…..¶[0072], lines 1 - ¶[0073], line 4), but fails to teach wherein the apparatus and device are a hearing apparatus and hearing device.
Hawkins teaches a system wherein a companion and accessory device perform ranging operations to unlock one of the devices, analogous to the method according to claim 11, wherein an apparatus may be a hearing apparatus (An accessory device (apparatus) may be a hearing aid (hearing apparatus/device)…..¶[0024], lines 8-11), and wherein a hearing device may be equipped with a controller (Shown in Fig. 8A and 8B, both devices have a processing subsystem (802) (controller).....¶[0188], lines 1-4; ¶[0195], lines 1-4) configured to carry out the method (Either of the devices (companion or accessory) may perform the detection and responses.....¶[0086], lines 1-4, ¶[0040], lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mutz to incorporate the teachings of Hawkins, and provide wherein the apparatus and device are a hearing apparatus and hearing device. This would provide the benefit wherein the devices may be implemented in any wearable article (Hawkins, ¶[0024], lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Mutz and Hawkins, as explained above, teach the hearing apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the hearing device is a hearing aid.
Regarding claim 23, Mutz discloses a system, comprising: an apparatus (Shown in Fig. 1, portable object (apparatus) (100)) having a first radio module (First transmission member (1).....¶[0075], lines 1-2) configured for an ultra-wideband radio connection (¶[0091], lines 1-4);
a smart mobile device (A mobile telephone.....¶[0067], lines 1-2) having a second radio module configured for the ultra-wideband radio connection (¶[0091], lines 1-4); and wherein said mobile device has a controller configured to carry out the method according to claim 11 (A controller device (200) is integral to the mobile device and comprises control members for performing calculations and controlling the lock state of the mobile device in response to the calculations…..¶[0072], lines 1 - ¶[0073], line 4).
Mutz fails to disclose wherein the system and apparatus are a hearing system and apparatus.
Hawkins teaches a method wherein an accessory system comprising an accessory apparatus unlocks a (smart phone) companion device via proximity, analogous to the method of claim 11, wherein the accessory system may comprise a hearing apparatus (The accessory device may be a hearing aid (hearing apparatus)…..¶[0024], lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mutz to incorporate the teachings of Hawkins, and provide wherein the system and apparatus are a hearing system and apparatus. This would provide the benefit wherein the system and apparatus may be implemented in any wearable article (Hawkins, ¶[0024], lines 7-8).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutz in view of Ledvina, US-PG-PUB No. 2020/0106877.
Regarding claim 19, Mutz discloses the method according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the radio module used to ascertain the presence of the known device is a narrowband transceiver and the ultra-wideband connection is activated when the presence is detected within a given distance.
Ledvina teaches a system of range determination between a sending and receiving smart device (analogous to the mobile device and known device, respectively) wherein the radio module used to ascertain the presence of the known device is a narrowband transceiver (Shown in Fig. 3, advertising to ascertain presence is conducted using a first (BLE narrowband) wireless protocol.....¶[0059], lines 1-2) and the ultra-wideband connection is activated (Ranging is performed via UWB.....¶[0066], lines 1-2) when the presence is detected within a given, predetermined distance (The ranging may begin when the devices are within the distance required for BLE communication, predetermined by the capabilities of the two devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mutz to incorporate the teachings of Ledvina and provide wherein the radio module used to ascertain the presence of the known device is a narrowband transceiver and the ultra-wideband connection is activated when the presence is detected within a given distance. This would provide the benefit of a system wherein the UWB protocol is not always on, saving power (Ledvina, ¶[0065], lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mutz and Ledvina, as explained above, teach the method according to claim 19, wherein the given distance is a further predefined distance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshihara et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2024/0151839 teaches a method of security authentication between smart devices wherein a narrow band signal is used to determine a minimum range for a UWB signal to be used to determine a range for authentication.
Qian et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2025/0133532 teaches multiple embodiments wherein ranging between two smart devices is determined through the simultaneous use of narrowband and ultra wide band signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN M RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694