Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2, 3 and 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the user session" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the user session" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the portable computing device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
The changes made to 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 do not apply when the reference is a U.S. patent resulting directly or indirectly from an international application filed before November 29, 2000. Therefore, the prior art date of the reference is determined under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior to the amendment by the AIPA (pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)).
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US 8806567 (Venable, Sr.).
As to claim 1, Venable teaches a computing device (figs 3 and 4) comprising: at least one processor (400, fig 4); a non-transient computer media (410, fig 4), storing computer instructions; and wherein, when the at least one processor executes the computer instructions, the computing device is programmed to:
capture a machine readable code (mobile device captures QR code, see column 8, lines 3-48);
extract a universal resource locator (URL) from the machine readable code (URL is read from QR code, see column 8, lines 3-48);
make an application call to authenticate a user before (URL from QR code is used to obtain network access configuration data that is used to authenticate [~call to authenticate] access to the network, see column 8, line 3-column 9, line 24); and
retrieve, from the URL, at least one agenda (URL is used to obtain network access configuration data that is used to access network, see column 8, line 3-column 9, line 24).
As to claim 2, Venable further teaches wherein the computer instructions comprise at least one first computer instruction that is stored in the non-transient computer media of the portable computing device prior to the user session is established; and wherein, when the at least one processor executes the at least one first computer instruction, the portable computing device is programmed to transmit the machine readable code (software in mobile device [~stored prior to user session established] knows to read URL from QR code and use that URL [~transmit the machine readable code] to retrieve the network access configuration data, see column 8, line 3-column 9, line 24).
As to claim 4, Venable further teaches the portable computing device of Claim 1, further comprising: a camera; wherein the computer instructions comprise reader instructions; wherein, when the at least one processor executes the reader instructions, the portable computing device is programmed to capture the machine readable code (mobile device uses camera to capture image of QR code, see column 8, lines 10-12).
As to claim 5, Venable further teaches wherein the machine readable code is a Quick Response (QR) Code (mobile device uses camera to capture image of QR code, see column 8, lines 10-12).
As to claim 12, Venable further teaches wherein the portable computing device is a mobile phone (mobile device may be a mobile radiotelephone, see column 3, lines 41-53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 3, 6-7 and 10-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venable in view of US 2002/0082907 (Inomata et al.).
As to claim 3, what is lacking from Venable is wherein the computer instructions comprise at least one second computer instruction that is stored in the non-transient computer media of the portable computing device after the user session is established; and wherein, when the at least one processor executes the at least one second computer instruction, the portable computing device is programmed to display the agenda.
In analogous art, Inomata teaches a computing device that uses a URL to establish a connection with a network for hosting a shareholder meeting. After said connection is established the computing device receives computer executable code from the network that is displayed by the computing device (see Inomata, paragraphs 51, 75-82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Venable so as to provide a valuable real-world utility to the secure network access method taught by Venable.
As to claim 6, what is lacking from Venable is wherein the agenda comprises at least one voting item that is related to the user-specific voting event-specific control number.
In analogous art, Inomata teaches a computing device that uses a URL to establish a connection with a network for hosting a shareholder meeting. After said connection is established the computing device receives and displays various shareholder meeting information including those for votes and their vote number (see Inomata, paragraphs 51-52 and figure 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Venable so as to provide a valuable real-world utility to the secure network access method taught by Venable.
As to claims 7, Inomata’s cited teachings further teach wherein the at least one voting item is a voting questionnaire for the voting event (see Inomata, figure 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Venable so as to provide a valuable real-world utility to the secure network access method taught by Venable.
As to claim 10, what is lacking from Venable is wherein the agenda comprises a voting confirmation data that is automatically updated with a combination of voting decisions made by a user through at least one graphical user interface.
In analogous art, Inomata teaches a computing device that uses a URL to establish a connection with a network for hosting a shareholder meeting. After said connection is established the computing device receives and displays various shareholder meeting information including the real time results of the voting that is done through the GUI of the computing device (see Inomata, paragraphs 51-52 and figures 14-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Venable so as to provide a valuable real-world utility to the secure network access method taught by Venable.
As to claim 11, what is lacking from Venable is wherein the agenda comprises a voting confirmation data that is automatically updated with a combination of voting decisions made by a user through at least one graphical user interface and a telephone voting interface.
In analogous art, Inomata teaches a computing device that uses a URL to establish a connection with a network for hosting a shareholder meeting. After said connection is established the computing device receives and displays various shareholder meeting information including the real time results of the voting that is done through the GUI of the computing device (see Inomata, paragraphs 51-52 and figures 14-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Venable so as to provide a valuable real-world utility to the secure network access method taught by Venable.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venable in view of US 2002/0082907 (Inomata et al.) in view of Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
As to claim 8, what is lacking from Venable is wherein the agenda comprises an annual meeting agenda item of a live virtual event; and wherein the live virtual event comprises a live virtual annual shareholder meeting of a traded company.
In analogous art, Inomata teaches a computing device that uses a URL to establish a connection with a network for hosting a shareholder meeting that may occur once a year. After said connection is established the computing device participates in a live virtual shareholder meeting of the traded company (see Inomata, paragraphs 3, 51-52 and figures 11-12 and 14-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Venable so as to provide a valuable real-world utility to the secure network access method taught by Venable.
What is further lacking from Venable in view of Inomata is the traded company being publicly traded company.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was known in the arts at time of claimed invention that traded companies could be publicly traded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the claimed invention to apply this teaching so as to provide even greater real-world utility to the secure network access method taught by Venable in view of Inomata.
As to claim 9, Inomata’s cited teachings in view of Official Notice further teach wherein the live virtual event comprises a real time virtual meeting of a publicly traded company (see Inomata, paragraphs 3, 51-52 and figures 11-12 and 14-15. In view of Official Notice, this would be a real time shareholder meeting for a publicly traded company)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Venable so as to provide a valuable real-world utility to the secure network access method taught by Venable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0088372 (Shridhar et al.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights