DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending, claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended, and claim 2 has been canceled..
In light of the Terminal Disclaimer of 05-27-2026 the double patenting rejections of claims have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments/arguments filed on 05-27-2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclose or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al. (US Publication No. 2007/0277230), hereinafter Hawkins, in view of Queru (US Patent No. 9,075,979), hereinafter Queru, further in view of de la Huerga (US Patent No. 5,960.085), hereinafter Huerga.
As per claim 1, 8 and 15, Hawkins discloses a method, comprising, by a first computing device that is operating in a first state (paragraph [0042], computing device 130 performs a lock, absence of r0aming device 120 causes device to perform the lock): receiving, using a wireless communications protocol (paragraph [0116], “wireless communication”), a device identifier associated with a second computing device (paragraph [0123], “authentication data is communicated from access device 140 to the mobile device …Authentication may include any of a variety of data…including such data and method as digital signature, encryption (private key and public key), digital certificates, passwords, etc..”); in response to determining, based on the device identifier, that the second computing device is known to the first computing device(paragraph [0123], “authentication data is verified by the mobile device”): transitioning the first computing device into a second state (paragraph [0123], once authentication verified access is allowed to the mobile device, paragraph [0040], receiving a code or the identifier that unlocks the device, paragraph [0045], device 120 communicates the security key to unlock the computing device).
Howkins does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Queru discloses, outputting a first signal to the second computing device, wherein the first signal is constructed to cause the second computing device to output a second signal; and in response to determining, based on the first and second signals, that the first and second computing devices are within a threshold distance from one another transitioning the first computing device into a second state (column 8, line 48- 59 and column9, lines 5-17, “When the computer system 400 verifies that the received information is accurate, the computer system 400 determines that a first authentication factor was successfully completed. The computer system 400 searches for a device… that only an authenticated user will possess. When the mobile device 404 is proximate to the computer system 400, the device 404 receives the request for identification signals [first signal] from the computer system 400….the application may cause the mobile device 404 to transmit signals [second signal] to the computer system 400 in response to receiving the request. The computer system 400 receives the signals that the mobile device 404 transmits, and verifies that the received signals establish that the mobile device 404 is in physical proximity to the computer system 400. In this manner, when the computer system 400 verifies that the mobile device 404 is proximate to the computer system, the system 400 authenticates the user 402 and grants access).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Howkins with Queru. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the predictable result of enhancing security by requiring multiple forms of verification to prevent unauthorized access.
Howkins in view of Queru does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Huerga disclose, in response to determining that at least a portion of content of the second signal is based on at least a portion of content of the first signal, transitioning the first computing device into a second state (column11, lines 45-58, column 12, lines 11-15, 29-31 “in step 600 the computer terminal 60 transmits an interrogation signal…Provided a substantially unobstructed signal path exists between the wireless transceiver device 64 (FIG. 3) of the computer terminal 60 and the wireless communication means 14 (FIG. 1) of a security badge 10, the security badge 10 will intercept, process, and be operable to return a part of the interrogation signal in a re-encrypted form…”, “… the security verification system 168, which stores the public keys of each security badge 10 given access privileges to the computer network, attempts to decrypt the re-encrypted interrogation signal using the public keys it retains… If the decryption is successful, a verification algorithm is used to compare the decrypted return response to the original, pre-encrypted interrogation signal”, column 4, lines 59-61, when security badge is authenticated the system is automatically logged onto computer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Howkins and Query with Huerga. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide connection and access to computer terminal that are automatically authenticated through a device worn by the system user .
As per claim 4, 11 and 18, Howkins furthermore discloses, wherein, during a pairing procedure conducted prior to receiving the device identifier, the first computing device stores the device identifier (figure 1A, identifier 127, 137, paragraph [0040], “mobile computing device may communicate the identifier 127…to enable Bluetooth connectivity with the laptop”).
As per claim 5, 12 and 19, Howkins furthermore discloses wherein: the first state comprises a locked state (paragraph [0042], “computing device 130 perform a lock, absence of roaming device 120 causes device to perform the lock) and the second state comprises an unlocked state (paragraph [0040], receiving a code or the identifier that unlocks the device); and the first computing device comprises a personal computing device, a security door, or an automobile (paragraph [0040], laptop or desktop computers).
As per claim 6, 13 and 20, Howkins furthermore discloses, wherein the first and second signals are transmitted over a communications protocol (paragraph [0068]-[0069], signal sent to secure element via speaker and response received by the computing device via microphone are inaudible sound waves) that is distinct from the wireless communications protocol (paragraph [0038], “Bluetooth, and/or WiFi transceivers”. Inaudible sound waves sent and received between the speakers and microphone is distinct from Bluetooth or WiFi wireless communications protocol).
As per claims 9 and 16, Huerga furthermore discloses, prior to transitioning the first computing device into the second state determining that second signal is derived from the first signal ( column 12, lines 27-32, “a verification algorithm is used to compare the decrypted return response to the original, pre-encrypted interrogation signal”). The motivation is to provide automatically authenticated connection and access to computer terminal through a device worn by the system user.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hawkins, Queru and Huerga, further in view of Kamperman (US Patent No. 8,886,939), hereinafter Kamperman.
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Hawkins as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, kamperman discloses, wherein determining that the first and second computing devices are within the threshold distance from one another comprises: deriving a time of flight based on the first and second signals, wherein the time of flight corresponds to a physical distance between the first computing device and the second computing device; and determining, based on the time of flight, that the physical distance is less than or equal to a predefined distance.(column 2, lines 38-50, transmitting a first signal from the first communication device to the second communication device at a first time t1, said second communication device being adapted for receiving said first signal, generating a second signal and transmitting the second signal to the first device, receiving the second signal at a second time t2, determining the distance between the first and the second communication device according to a time difference between t1 and t2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified Hawkins with Kamperman. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform authenticate distance measurement between devices.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hawkins, Queru and Huerga further in view of Libeskind et al. (US Patent No. 2009/0060498), hereinafter Libeskind.
As per claim 7 and 14, Hawkins as modified does not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art, Libeskind discloses, wherein the second signal comprises a copy of the first signal (paragraph [0006], a first node configured for transmitting a first signal to a second node, the second node configured for transmitting a copy of the first signal to the first node in response to receiving the first signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine the modified Hawkins with Libeskind. This would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to measure a roundtrip time for the fires signal to travel between a first node and second node.
References Cited, Not Used
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Robertson et al. (US Publication No. 2010/0201536) discloses, a wireless device access system employs short-range wireless communication to detect the proximity of a user device to a structure and a
wide-area data network to communicate an unlock request. The access system then authenticates the
unlock request and the proximity of the user device prior to transmitting and unlock command to the structure. Additionally, the wireless device may require the proximity of a user token prior to operation and/or the access system may include an override within the structure blocking any unlock command.
Singh, (US Publication No.2005/0030151) discloses, systems, methods, and devices for providing secure authentication of a user to a machine and/or system and secure operation of the machine and/or system thereafter. A representative method, amount others, includes: authenticating a user to a system directly or via a proximity device; authenticating the proximity device to a receiver in the system; upon successful authentication, initiating operation of the system; and intermittently communicating between the proximity device and the receiver to verify whether the proximity device is within continued proximity of the system.
Sengupta, (US Publication No.2005/0221798) discloses, techniques and structures for providing proximity based authentication, security, and/or user notification in a wireless system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)272-7961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:00 am-5:00pm (EST).
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)270-5143. 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.
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights