DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to communication filed on 30 September 2019, with acknowledgement of an original application filed on 07 August 2024.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are in independent forms.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 07/08/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Remarks
4. Examiner maintained the double patenting rejection
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I) In response to applicant's arguments on page 8, Applicant argued that Thampi fails to teach or suggest "verifying, by the first device, the second device based at least in part on a comparison of the other device-identifying information included in the message with the device-identifying information received over the out-of-band communication channel," as recited in independent claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument. The applicant argued that Thampi fails to teach or suggest verifying, by the first device, the second device based at least in part on a comparison of the other device-identifying information included in the message with the device-identifying information received over the out-of-band communication channel. Contrary to the applicant assertion, as stated in the office action the Thampi reference discloses when the remote computer receives the response value from the second user device 300 via the first user device, the remote computer can compare the received response value to an expected response value. The hash function can allow for the remote computer to verify that some input data maps to a given hash value. Furthermore, the Thampi reference discloses At step 10, after receiving the response value from the first user device 402, the remote computer 406 can verify the response value. The remote computer 406 can compare the received response value to an expected response value. The expected response value can be a value that the remote computer 406 expects to receive based on the token. For example, the remote computer 406 can determine the expected response value using a hash function. The inputs to the hash function can include the token (sent to the first user device at step 5) and the second user device identifier (received prior to step 1 during enrollment). For example, the token can be a value of 0123456789, while the second user device identifier can be a value of 123ABC as described above. The remote computer 406 can determine the response value using a hash function of SHA-256 (see Thampi par. 0078).
II) In response to applicant's arguments on page 9, Applicant argued that the cited references fail to teach or suggest "in response to verifying the second device, causing an indication of the verification to be displayed on the first device," as recited in independent claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument. The applicant argued that the cited reference fail to teach or suggest in response to verifying the second device, causing an indication of the verification to be displayed on the first device. Contrary to the applicant assertion, as stated in the office action the Thampi reference discloses The authentication response module 212B can, in conjunction with the processor 204, also display the response value to the user via the one or more output elements 210, such as a display screen. Furthermore, the Thampi reference discloses At step 8, after receiving the authentication response message from the second user device 408 via the short range communication channel, the first user device 402 can display the response value to the user of the first and second user devices 402, 408. The user can then input the response value into the interaction application 404. For example, the user can copy the response value from the display into a data field in the interaction application 404. The user can type, or otherwise input, the response value into the interaction application 404, if the response value is equal to ‘89AF2,’ then the first user device 402 can display ‘89AF2’ to the user via a pop-up notification on the display of the second user device 408. The user can then input the response value ‘89AF2’ into a data field provided by the interaction application. The user can select the data field and may type, or otherwise input, ‘89AF2’ into the data field (see Thampi pars. 0075-0076).
III) In response to applicant's arguments on page 10, Applicant argued that the proposed combination of the cited portions of the applied references does not disclose or suggest all of the features of independent claim 10. Accordingly, independent claim 10 is patentable
Examiner refers applicant to the response above in items I and II.
IV) In response to applicant's arguments on page 10, Applicant argued that the proposed combination of the cited portions of the applied references does not disclose or suggest all of the features of independent claim 17. Accordingly, independent claim 17 is patentable.
Examiner refers applicant to the response above in items I and II.
V) In response to applicant's arguments on page 11, Applicant argued that the proposed combination of the cited portions of the applied references does not disclose or suggest all of the features of dependent claim 19. Accordingly, dependent claim 19 is patentable.
Examiner refers applicant to the response above in items I and II.
VI) In response to applicant's arguments on page 11, Applicant argued that the other claims currently under consideration in the application are dependent from their respective independent claims discussed above and therefore are believed to be allowable for at least similar reasons.
Examiner refers applicant to the response above in items I and II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosati et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0343542 (hereinafter Rosati) in view of Meuleman et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0099920 (hereinafter Meuleman) in further view of Thampi US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0228520 (hereinafter Thampi).
Regarding claim 1, Rosati discloses a method comprising:
“receiving, by a first device and over an (see Rosati par. 0047, Each of the example mobile devices 102, 104 has a private key/public key pair 502. The devices 102, 104 exchange 504 the public key portions of the private key/public key pair. After exchanging the public keys, each of the example mobile devices 102, 104 obtains verification 506 (e.g., from their respective users, via user interfaces of the mobile devices 102, 104) that the other mobile device 102, 104 is trusted); but Rosati does not explicitly discloses out-of-band communication channel.
However, in analogues art, Meuleman discloses out-of-band communication channel (see Meuleman pars. 0126-0127, 0178, the second device is arranged to generate 411 a third random number (γ), and to send 412 the third random number to first device over a further out-of-band channel that requires human interaction with the first device. For example, the first device may comprise a further receiving out-of-band unit 145, and the second device may comprise a further sending out-of-band unit 245).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Meuleman into the system of Rosati in order to provide a First device comprises a sending out-of-band communication unit arranged to send the session identifier and the first key element to the second device over an out-of-band channel (see Meuleman par. 0126).
Rosati in view of Meuleman does not explicitly discloses receiving, a message from the second device, wherein the message comprises another device-identifying information corresponding to the second device; verifying, by the first device, the second device based at least in part on a comparison of the other device-identifying information included in the message with the device-identifying information received over the out-of-band communication channel; and in response to verifying the second device, causing an indication of the verification to be displayed on the first device.
However in analogues art, Thampi discloses receiving, a message from the second device, wherein the message comprises another device- identifying information corresponding to the second device (see Thampi par. 0007, receiving, by a second user device, an authentication request message from a first user device via a short range communication channel; generating, by the second user device, a response value based on the authentication request message and a second user device identifier); verifying, by the first device, the second device based at least in part on a comparison of the other device-identifying information included in the message with the device-identifying information received over the out-of-band communication channel (see Thampi par. 0056, The response value generation module of the remote computer can be similar to the response value generation module 312A of the second user device 300. The hash function (or other cryptographic function) stored by the remote computer can be the same hash function as stored by the second user device 300. In this way, the remote computer and the second user device 300 can input the same inputs (i.e., the token and the device identifier of the second user device 300) into the respective hash functions which can both output the same value (i.e., response value). Thus, when the remote computer receives the response value from the second user device 300 via the first user device, the remote computer can compare the received response value to an expected response value. The hash function can allow for the remote computer to verify that some input data maps to a given hash value); and in response to verifying the second device, causing an indication of the verification to be displayed on the first device (see Thampi par. 0049, the authentication response module 212B, in conjunction with the processor 204, can receive authentication response messages comprising response values from a second user device via the short range communication channel. The authentication response module 212B can, in conjunction with the processor 204, also display the response value to the user via the one or more output elements 210, such as a display screen).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Thampi into the system of Rosati in order to transmit, by the first user device, an authentication response message to the remote computer causing the remote computer to verify the response value and perform further processing if the response value is verified (see Thampi par. 0005).
Regarding claim 2, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the method of claim 1,
Thampi further discloses wherein the device-identifying information comprises a first token and the other device-identifying information comprises a second token (see Thampi par. 0053, The response value generation module 312A, in conjunction with the processor 304, can receive an authentication request message comprising a token. In some embodiments, the inputs to the response value generation module 312A can include the token and a device identifier of the second user device 300 (i.e., a second user device identifier). In some embodiments, the response value generation module 312A, in conjunction with the processor 304, can create the response value by hashing or otherwise altering the token and the second user device identifier).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Thampi into the system of Rosati and Meuleman in order to transmit, by the first user device, an authentication response message to the remote computer causing the remote computer to verify the response value and perform further processing if the response value is verified (see Thampi par. 0005).
Regarding claim 3, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the method of claim 1,
Rosati further discloses transmitting, by the first device, over the out-of-band communication channel, a first public key to the second device, and receiving, over the out-of-band communication channel, a second public key from the second device (see Rosati par. 0042, to establish the secure connection, the example NFC module 204 transmits a public key (e.g., public key A) to the other NFC module via the antenna 208. When a secure NFC connection has been established, the NFC module 204 transmits and receives data encrypted using a shared key).
Regarding claim 4, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the method of claim 1,
Rosati further discloses establishing, by the first device, the out-of-band communication channel with the second device by: connecting, by the first device, to the second device via the direct wireless connection (see Rosati par. 0046, when the mobile devices 102, 104 are "tapped" together (e.g., when NFC communications or any other close-proximity communications are established); in response to connecting to the second device via the direct wireless connection, determining, by the first device, whether the second device is within a threshold distance of the first device (see Rosati par. 0047, The user may know that the other mobile device 104 is trusted because of the close-proximity nature of the NFC connection (e.g., she is standing next to the user of the device 104)); and in response to determining that the second device is within the threshold distance, establishing, by the first device, the out-of-band communication channel (see Rosati par. 0047, The user may know that the other mobile device 104 is trusted because of the close-proximity nature of the NFC connection (e.g., she is standing next to the user of the device 104). Verification that the other mobile device is trusted may additionally or alternatively be accomplished using other methods).
Regarding claim 6, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the method of claim 1,
Thampi further discloses wherein the received message is encrypted and the method further comprises decrypting the message (see Thampi par. 0081, if symmetric key encryption is used, then the response value may be created by encrypting the second device identifier and the token using a symmetric key shared with the second user device. In still other embodiments, the response value can be decrypted with the symmetric key to obtain the inputs to the response value, and those inputs can be verified to authenticate the user).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Thampi into the system of Rosati and Meuleman in order to transmit, by the first user device, an authentication response message to the remote computer causing the remote computer to verify the response value and perform further processing if the response value is verified (see Thampi par. 0005).
Regarding claim 7, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the method of claim 1,
Rosati further discloses establishing, by the first device, a particular type of relationship with the second device (Rosati in par. 0028 discloses the mobile devices 102, 104 establish a trust relationship on a first occasion or first use that the mobile devices 102, 104 are connected via NFC. As used herein, a trust relationship exists when both parties to an NFC transaction have verified that the other party is authentic (e.g., there is no attacker, such as a man-in-the-middle attacker). When a trust relationship is established between the mobile devices 102, 104, the example mobile device 102 may store a key, an identifier corresponding to the mobile device 104, and/or a shared key); storing, by the first device, the device-identifying information in association with an indication of the particular type of relationship established with the second device (see Rosati pars. 0016, 0047, If the users acknowledge or verify the trust, each of the example mobile devices accepts the key received from the other mobile device as trusted and stores the key, the identifier, and/or a shared key calculated using the received key. After exchanging the public keys, each of the example mobile devices 102, 104 obtains verification 506 (e.g., from their respective users, via user interfaces of the mobile devices 102, 104) that the other mobile device 102, 104 is trusted. For example, the mobile device 102 prompts a user of the mobile device 102 to confirm that the other mobile device 104, from which the mobile device 102 has received a public key, is trusted); and transmitting, by the first device, to the second device over the out-of-band communication channel, the indication of the particular type of relationship established with the second device (see Rosati pars. 0048-0049, the mobile devices 102, 104 exchange suggested identifiers when exchanging the public keys Q.sub.A, Q.sub.B. In some examples, the public keys Q.sub.A, Q.sub.B, or a derivative of the public keys Q.sub.A, Q.sub.B, is used as the identifiers. The suggested identifiers may then be used when prompting the respective users to verify that the mobile devices are trusted).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the method of claim 7, the device of claim 11,
Meuleman further discloses wherein the message is received over a different communication channel than the out-of-band communication channel (see Meuleman pars. 0109-0110, communication units 110 and 210 may each have a Wi-Fi connection. Nevertheless, first device 100, and second device 200 need not be able to use their connection unit to directly communicate with each other. Configuring two electronic devices, say devices 100 and 200 to establish a direct connection that does not run via an intermediary connection is typically hard, if not impossible).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Meuleman into the system of Rosati in order to provide a First device comprises a sending out-of-band communication unit arranged to send the session identifier and the first key element to the second device over an out-of-band channel (see Meuleman par. 0126).
Regarding claim 10, Rosati discloses a device, comprising:
“a memory” (Fig. 2, memory 206); and at least one processor (Fig. 2, processor 202) configured to:
“receive, over (see Rosati par. 0047, Each of the example mobile devices 102, 104 has a private key/public key pair 502. The devices 102, 104 exchange 504 the public key portions of the private key/public key pair. After exchanging the public keys, each of the example mobile devices 102, 104 obtains verification 506 (e.g., from their respective users, via user interfaces of the mobile devices 102, 104) that the other mobile device 102, 104 is trusted); but Rosati does not explicitly discloses out-of-band communication channel.
However, in analogues art, Meuleman discloses out-of-band communication channel (see Meuleman pars. 0126-0127, 0178, the second device is arranged to generate 411 a third random number (γ), and to send 412 the third random number to first device over a further out-of-band channel that requires human interaction with the first device. For example, the first device may comprise a further receiving out-of-band unit 145, and the second device may comprise a further sending out-of-band unit 245).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Meuleman into the system of Rosati in order to provide a First device comprises a sending out-of-band communication unit arranged to send the session identifier and the first key element to the second device over an out-of-band channel (see Meuleman par. 0126).
Rosati in view of Meuleman does not explicitly discloses receive a message from the other device, wherein the message includes another device-identifying information corresponding to the other device; verify the other device based at least in part on comparing the other device-identifying information included in the received message to the device-identifying information received from the other device over the out-of- band communication channel; and in response to verification of the other device, cause an indication of the verification to be displayed.
However in analogues art, Thampi discloses receive a message from the other device, wherein the message includes another device-identifying information corresponding to the other device (see Thampi par. 0007, receiving, by a second user device, an authentication request message from a first user device via a short range communication channel; generating, by the second user device, a response value based on the authentication request message and a second user device identifier); verify the other device based at least in part on comparing the other device-identifying information included in the received message to the device-identifying information received from the other device over the out-of- band communication channel (see Thampi par. 0056, The response value generation module of the remote computer can be similar to the response value generation module 312A of the second user device 300. The hash function (or other cryptographic function) stored by the remote computer can be the same hash function as stored by the second user device 300. In this way, the remote computer and the second user device 300 can input the same inputs (i.e., the token and the device identifier of the second user device 300) into the respective hash functions which can both output the same value (i.e., response value). Thus, when the remote computer receives the response value from the second user device 300 via the first user device, the remote computer can compare the received response value to an expected response value. The hash function can allow for the remote computer to verify that some input data maps to a given hash value); and in response to verification of the other device, cause an indication of the verification to be displayed (see Thampi par. 0049, the authentication response module 212B, in conjunction with the processor 204, can receive authentication response messages comprising response values from a second user device via the short range communication channel. The authentication response module 212B can, in conjunction with the processor 204, also display the response value to the user via the one or more output elements 210, such as a display screen).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Thampi into the system of Rosati and Meuleman in order to transmit, by the first user device, an authentication response message to the remote computer causing the remote computer to verify the response value and perform further processing if the response value is verified (see Thampi par. 0005).
Regarding claim 11, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the device of claim 10,
Rosati further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: connect to the other device via the direct wireless connection (see Rosati par. 0046, when the mobile devices 102, 104 are "tapped" together (e.g., when NFC communications or any other close-proximity communications are established); when connected to the other device via the direct wireless connection, determine whether the other device is within a threshold distance of the device (see Rosati par. 0047, The user may know that the other mobile device 104 is trusted because of the close-proximity nature of the NFC connection (e.g., she is standing next to the user of the device 104)); and when the other device is within the threshold distance, establish the out-of-band communication channel (see Rosati par. 0047, The user may know that the other mobile device 104 is trusted because of the close-proximity nature of the NFC connection (e.g., she is standing next to the user of the device 104). Verification that the other mobile device is trusted may additionally or alternatively be accomplished using other methods).
Regarding claim 14, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the device of claim 10,
Rosati further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, over the out-of-band communication channel, a first public key to the other device, and receive, over the out-of-band communication channel, a second public key from the other device (see Rosati par. 0042, to establish the secure connection, the example NFC module 204 transmits a public key (e.g., public key A) to the other NFC module via the antenna 208. When a secure NFC connection has been established, the NFC module 204 transmits and receives data encrypted using a shared key).
Regarding claim 16, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the device of claim 10,
Thampi further discloses wherein the received message is encrypted and the at least one processor is further configured to decrypt the message (see Thampi par. 0081, if symmetric key encryption is used, then the response value may be created by encrypting the second device identifier and the token using a symmetric key shared with the second user device. In still other embodiments, the response value can be decrypted with the symmetric key to obtain the inputs to the response value, and those inputs can be verified to authenticate the user).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Thampi into the system of Rosati and Meuleman in order to transmit, by the first user device, an authentication response message to the remote computer causing the remote computer to verify the response value and perform further processing if the response value is verified (see Thampi par. 0005).
Regarding claim 17, Rosati discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising code that, when executed by one or more processors (Fig. 2, processor 202), causes the one or more processors to perform operations (par. 0035, implemented using coded instructions (e.g., computer readable instructions) stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium such as a hard disk drive, a flash memory, a read-only memory, a compact disk, a digital versatile disk, a cache, a random-access memory and/or any other storage media in which information is stored for any duration), the code comprising:
code to receive, by a first device and over an out-of-band communication channel, device-identifying information from a second device (see Rosati pars. 0048-0049, the mobile devices 102, 104 exchange suggested identifiers when exchanging the public keys Q.sub.A, Q.sub.B. In some examples, the public keys Q.sub.A, Q.sub.B, or a derivative of the public keys Q.sub.A, Q.sub.B, is used as the identifiers. The suggested identifiers may then be used when prompting the respective users to verify that the mobile devices are trusted); but Rosati does not explicitly discloses an out-of-band communication channel.
However, in analogues art, Meuleman discloses an out-of-band communication channel (see Meuleman pars. 0126-0127, 0178, the second device is arranged to generate 411 a third random number (γ), and to send 412 the third random number to first device over a further out-of-band channel that requires human interaction with the first device. For example, the first device may comprise a further receiving out-of-band unit 145, and the second device may comprise a further sending out-of-band unit 245).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Meuleman into the system of Rosati in order to provide a First device comprises a sending out-of-band communication unit arranged to send the session identifier and the first key element to the second device over an out-of-band channel (see Meuleman par. 0126).
Rosati in view of Meuleman does not explicitly discloses code to receive, a message from the second device, wherein the message comprises another device-identifying information corresponding to the second device; code to verify, by the first device, the second device based at least in part on a comparison of the other device-identifying information included in the message with the device-identifying information received from the second device; and in response to verification of the second device, cause an indication of the verification to be displayed on the first device.
However in analogues art, Thampi discloses code to receive, a message from the second device, wherein the message comprises another device-identifying information corresponding to the second device (see Thampi par. 0007, receiving, by a second user device, an authentication request message from a first user device via a short range communication channel; generating, by the second user device, a response value based on the authentication request message and a second user device identifier); code to verify, by the first device, the second device based at least in part on a comparison of the other device-identifying information included in the message with the device-identifying information received from the second device (see Thampi par. 0056, The response value generation module of the remote computer can be similar to the response value generation module 312A of the second user device 300. The hash function (or other cryptographic function) stored by the remote computer can be the same hash function as stored by the second user device 300. In this way, the remote computer and the second user device 300 can input the same inputs (i.e., the token and the device identifier of the second user device 300) into the respective hash functions which can both output the same value (i.e., response value). Thus, when the remote computer receives the response value from the second user device 300 via the first user device, the remote computer can compare the received response value to an expected response value. The hash function can allow for the remote computer to verify that some input data maps to a given hash value); and in response to verification of the second device, cause an indication of the verification to be displayed on the first device (see Thampi par. 0049, the authentication response module 212B, in conjunction with the processor 204, can receive authentication response messages comprising response values from a second user device via the short range communication channel. The authentication response module 212B can, in conjunction with the processor 204, also display the response value to the user via the one or more output elements 210, such as a display screen).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Thampi into the system of Rosati and Meuleman in order to transmit, by the first user device, an authentication response message to the remote computer causing the remote computer to verify the response value and perform further processing if the response value is verified (see Thampi par. 0005).
Regarding claim 18, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17,
Rosati further discloses wherein the code further comprises: code to transmit, by the first device, a first public key to the second device, and to receive, by the first device, a second public key from the second device (see Rosati par. 0042, to establish the secure connection, the example NFC module 204 transmits a public key (e.g., public key A) to the other NFC module via the antenna 208. When a secure NFC connection has been established, the NFC module 204 transmits and receives data encrypted using a shared key).
Regarding claim 19, Rosati in view of Thampi discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18,
Thampi further discloses wherein the received message is encrypted and the code further comprises: code to decrypt the message based at least in part on the second public key (see Thampi par. 0081, if symmetric key encryption is used, then the response value may be created by encrypting the second device identifier and the token using a symmetric key shared with the second user device. In still other embodiments, the response value can be decrypted with the symmetric key to obtain the inputs to the response value, and those inputs can be verified to authenticate the user).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Thampi into the system of Rosati and Meuleman in order to transmit, by the first user device, an authentication response message to the remote computer causing the remote computer to verify the response value and perform further processing if the response value is verified (see Thampi par. 0005).
Regarding claim 20, Rosati in view of Thampi discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17,
Thampi further discloses wherein the device-identifying information comprises a first token and the other device-identifying information comprises a second token (see Thampi par. 0053, The response value generation module 312A, in conjunction with the processor 304, can receive an authentication request message comprising a token. In some embodiments, the inputs to the response value generation module 312A can include the token and a device identifier of the second user device 300 (i.e., a second user device identifier). In some embodiments, the response value generation module 312A, in conjunction with the processor 304, can create the response value by hashing or otherwise altering the token and the second user device identifier).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Thampi into the system of Rosati and Meuleman in order to transmit, by the first user device, an authentication response message to the remote computer causing the remote computer to verify the response value and perform further processing if the response value is verified (see Thampi par. 0005).
8. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosati et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0343542 (hereinafter Rosati) in view of Meuleman et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0099920 (hereinafter Meuleman) in further view of Thampi US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0228520 (hereinafter Thampi) in further view of Jorgovanovic US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0053612 (hereinafter Jorgovanovic).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Rosati in view of Meuleman in further view of Thampi discloses the method of claim 4, the device of claim 11,
Rosati in view of Thampi does not explicitly discloses in response to connecting to the second device, starting, by the first device, a timer; and in response to determining that the second device is not within the threshold distance of the first device before the timer reaches a timeout value, disconnecting, by the first device, the direct wireless connection to the second device.
However, in analogues art, Jorgovanovic discloses in response to connecting to the second device, starting, by the first device, a timer; and in response to determining that the second device is not within the threshold distance of the first device before the timer reaches a timeout value, disconnecting, by the first device, the direct wireless connection to the second device (see Jorgovanovic pars. 0042-0043, the first device 110a may determine a time between determining to initiate the role switch and a present time, by, for example, starting a timer when first determining to initiate the role switch and by comparing the time represented by the timer to a threshold time. The threshold time may be, for example, 1-10 milliseconds. If the time represented by the timer meets or exceeds the threshold time, the first device 110a may, as described above, recompute and re-send the delay time. The first device 110a disconnects the second wireless connection 114b, and the second device 110b establishes the third wireless connection 114c).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Jorgovanovic into the system of Rosati, Meuleman, and Thampi in order to include a first audio-output device determines a delay time corresponding to the first audio data and sends the delay time to the second audio-output device. The first audio-output device disconnects the first wireless connection and sends, to the second audio-output device, at least a portion of the first audio data (see Jorgovanovic par. 0022).
9. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosati et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0343542 (hereinafter Rosati) in view of Meuleman et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0099920 (hereinafter Meuleman) in further view of Thampi US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0228520 (hereinafter Thampi) in further view of Kahn et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0248389 (hereinafter Kahn).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Rosati in view of Thampi discloses the method of claim 7, the device of claim 10,
Rosati in view of Thampi does not explicitly discloses displaying, by the first device, one or more types of relationships between users; receiving, by the first device, a selection of one of the one or more types of relationships, the selected type of relationship corresponding to the particular type of relationship between a first user associated with the first device and a second user associated with the second device; and establishing, by the first device, the particular type of relationship based on the selected type of relationship.
However, in analogues art, Kahn discloses displaying, by the first device, one or more types of relationships between users (see Kahn par. 0030, if the relationship qualification service 102 determines that Adam and Bill are "friends" (indicative of there being a high probability that Bill would want to communicate with Adam), then the communications service 112 can annotate the message in a manner that causes Bill's device provides an interrupting and revealing delivery through its user interface (e.g., an audio alert, a vibration, a visual notification of the message delivery and its contents, etc.)); receiving, by the first device, a selection of one of the one or more types of relationships, the selected type of relationship corresponding to the particular type of relationship between the first user and the second user (see Kahn par. 0060, FIG. 11 illustrates an example messaging screen 1100 for a sender having "friend" relationship type with the recipient. If the recipient selects the message from FIG. 10, then the mobile device 1102 presents the messaging screen 1100 to allow the recipient to respond to the message via input box 1106. If the recipient responds to the message, the action of responding may be communicated back to the communications service and/or the relationship qualification service to further refine the relationship qualification process); and establishing, by the first device, the particular type of relationship based on the selected type of relationship (see Kahn par. 0060, If the recipient responds to the message, the action of responding may be communicated back to the communications service and/or the relationship qualification service to further refine the relationship qualification process).
Conclusion 10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMUEL AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7635. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571) 272-6798. 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.
/SAMUEL AMBAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights