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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the specification for the amendments.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21-26 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. It is unclear how audio data and a signal includes the same identifier. It is unclear if there is the determining step.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21-26 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20180198783-A1 to Liu et al. (“Liu”).
As to claim 2, Liu disclose(s) a method comprising:
receiving audio data including an identifier associated with a device; (Liu; voice command for confirming sending fig. 2 – 212; [0028];)
receiving, from the device, a signal including network address and the identifier; (Liu; send voice input to the server, step 715; [0050]; MAC address teaches network address; [0034]; [0035])
and in response to determining that the audio data includes the identifier and the signal includes the identifier:
establishing a wireless connection with the device using the network address, and (Liu; initiate a wireless connection after validating the request; [0005])
using the wireless connection to exchange information with the device. (Liu; sends a file transfer connection request to a centralized server; [0016])
As to claim 3, Liu disclose(s) the method of claim 2, wherein the wireless connection is used to exchange the information with the device in response to determining that the audio data includes an information request related to the information. (Liu; fig. 2 file transfer; [0002])
As to claim 5, Liu disclose(s) the method of claim 2, wherein the information sent is at least one of:
a file, contact information, or information providing access to a resource. (Liu; sends a file transfer connection request to a centralized server; file teaches at least one of a file; [0016])
As to claim 9, Liu disclose(s) a system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory configured with instructions to:
receive audio data including an identifier associated with a device;
receive, from the device, a signal including a network address and the identifier;
and
in response to determining that the audio data includes the identifier and the signal includes the identifier:
establish a wireless connection with the device using the network address, and
use the wireless connection to exchange information with the device.
See similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 10, Liu disclose(s) the system of claim 9, wherein the wireless connection is used to exchange the information with the device in response to determining that the audio data includes an information request related to the information.
See similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 12, Liu disclose(s) the system of claim 9, wherein the information sent is at least one of:
a file, contact information, or information providing access to a resource.
See similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 15, Liu disclose(s) a non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computing device to:
receive audio data including an identifier associated with a device;
receive, from the device, a signal including a network address and the identifier;
and
in response to determining that audio data includes the identifier and that the signal includes the identifier:
establish a wireless connection with the device using the network address, and
use the wireless connection to exchange information with the device.
See similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 16, Liu disclose(s) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the wireless connection is used to exchange the information with the device in response to determining that the audio data includes an information request related to the information.
See similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 18, Liu disclose(s) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the information exchanged is at least one of:
a file, contact information, or information providing access to a resource.
See similar rejection to claim 5.
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(s) 6, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-10108272-B1 to DeBates et al. (“DeBates”).
As to claim 6, Liu disclose(s) the method of claim 2,
But does not expressly disclose wherein establishing the wireless connection further includes exchanging public keys over the wireless connection to establish an encrypted communication channel.
DeBates discloses exchanging public keys so that transmission are encrypted over a wireless connection. (DeBates; col. 10, ll. 42-67)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the public key exchange and encryption of DeBates and the wireless connection of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with wireless connections. Using the encryption of DeBates would allow for file transmission to be sent securely.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 13, Liu-DeBates disclose(s) the system of claim 9, wherein establishing the wireless connection further includes exchanging public keys over the wireless connection to establish an encrypted communication channel.
See similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 19, Liu disclose(s) the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein establishing the wireless connection further includes exchanging public keys over the wireless connection to establish an encrypted communication channel.
See similar rejection to claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445