Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application with case number 18/859,099, filed on 10/22/2024 in which claims 1-16, 19-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16, 19-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 19-20 are in independent form.
IDS
References cited in the IDS filed on 10/22/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Benefit of priority claimed based on UK Patent No. GB2205953.9 filed on 4/25/2022 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Specification
The examiner notes that the Specification does not include any URL links and Trademark terms requiring capitalization.
The examiner notes that the abstract is in narrative form and is limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The examiner notes no claims invokes 35 USC § 112 6th paragraph.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Abstract uses legal phraseology “comprising” and “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-7, 13, 15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao (US 2015/0006648 A1).
As to claim 1, Cao teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: broadcasting (see para. [0040] “Referring now to FIGS. 1, and 6, the method 100 the proceeds to block 110 where sender message information is sent to receiver devices within the limited geographic message exchange area. In an embodiment of block 110, the system provider device sends some or all of the sender message information received at block 102 over the network to the receiver user devices that were determined to be within the limited geographic message exchange area at block 106”) a presence (see para. [0024] “[0024] In one embodiment, a user of the sender user device 300 may be a user attending an event at a venue, and that user may create a message using the location restricted message creation screen 304. For example, that user may use a virtual keyboard (not illustrated) on the sender user device 300 to type message information for the message (e.g., "Go Niners!" in the illustrated embodiment). Furthermore, the user may provide location information by providing a location in the location input 308a (e.g., providing a venue name, a venue address, venue coordinates, a seating section in the venue, a seating row in the venue, a seat in the venue, etc.), selecting the use current location button 308b to instruct a location determination device (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) device) in the sender user device 300 to determine location coordinates associated with the current location of the sender user device 300, and/or selecting the share ticking information button 308c to instruct the system provider device to retrieve information about tickets purchased for the event that the user is attending at the venue (e.g., seating information for the user including, for example, section information, row information, and/or seat information).”) of a first actor (O1) (e.g., message sender) within a zone (Z) (e.g., seating row) of a domain (D) (e.g., venue) comprising a plurality of zones (Z) (see Fig. 7 disclosing sections of the venue with seating rows and seats); wherein:
the first actor (O1) sends, to at least one other actor (O2) within the domain, at least one transmission containing data that enables the at least one other actor (O2) to determine a proximity of the first actor in relation to the zone (Z) ([0024] In one embodiment, a user of the sender user device 300 may be a user attending an event at a venue, and that user may create a message using the location restricted message creation screen 304. For example, that user may use a virtual keyboard (not illustrated) on the sender user device 300 to type message information for the message (e.g., "Go Niners!" in the illustrated embodiment). Furthermore, the user may provide location information by providing a location in the location input 308a (e.g., providing a venue name, a venue address, venue coordinates, a seating section in the venue, a seating row in the venue, a seat in the venue, etc.), selecting the use current location button 308b to instruct a location determination device (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) device) in the sender user device 300 to determine location coordinates associated with the current location of the sender user device 300, and/or selecting the share ticking information button 308c to instruct the system provider device to retrieve information about tickets purchased for the event that the user is attending at the venue (e.g., seating information for the user including, for example, section information, row information, and/or seat information).
As to claims 19 and 20, claims 19-20 include similar limitations as claim 1 and thus claims 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 1.
As to claim 2, in view of claim 1, Cao teaches wherein the first actor (O1) further sends at least one further transmission, said at least one further transmission containing data that enables the at least one other actor (O2) to determine the proximity of the first actor in relation to the zone (Z) in the domain (X) (see para. [0029] “…the receiver user devices may automatically determine and provide their current locations periodically or in response to a request (e.g., from the system provider device) such that the system provider device receives those current locations.”).
As to claim 3, in view of claim 2, Cao teaches wherein the first actor sends the at least one transmission and/or the at least one further transmission to all actors present in the domain (D) (see para. [0043] “where the response message is sent to receiver devices within the limited geographic message exchange area. In an embodiment, the system provider device may send the response message information to receiver devices within the limited geographic message exchange area in substantially the same manner as described above for block 110.”).
As to claim 4, in view of claim 2, Cao teaches wherein the domain (D) (e.g., venue) further includes at least one of a sub-domain (sD) (e.g., seating section) and a sub-zone (sZ) (e.g., seat; see para. [0024]-[0026]).
As to claim 5, in view of claim 4, Cao teaches wherein at least one of the zone (Z), the domain (D), the sub-domain (sD) and the sub-zone (sZ) comprise an identifier (see para. [0031] for venue section or venue name; The examiner considers the venue name as the venue name/address as equivalent to the identifier.)
As to claim 6, in view of claim 5, Cao teaches wherein: i) the identifier is unique for each of the zone (Z), the domain (D), the sub-domain (sD) and the sub-zone (sZ) (see para. [0024] “…the user may provide location information by providing a location in the location input 308a (e.g., providing a venue name, a venue address, venue coordinates, a seating section in the venue, a seating row in the venue, a seat in the venue, etc.)”); ii) the identifier is, comprises or is derived from a master key, iii) the identifier is included in the at least one transmission and/or the at least one further transmission, iv) the identifier is modified, replaced or updated, preferably at predetermined intervals, or upon satisfaction of a specified condition, or upon performance of a triggering event; v) the identifier is generated by at least one of the zone (Z), the domain (D), the sub-domain (sD) and the sub-zone (sZ).
As to claim 7, in view of claim 2, Cao teaches wherein the at least one transmission and/or the at least one further transmission comprises: a commitment identifying the presence and/or non-presence of the first actor; and/or a commitment to perform a function in the zone and/or modify a property of the zone (see Fig. 6 – selling hot dogs or soft drinks).
As to claim 10, in view of claim 4, Cao teaches wherein the zone (Z), the domain (D), the sub-domain (sD) or the sub-zone (sZ) is at least one of: a physical entity represented by spatial or geospatial data (e.g., venue, seating section, row, seat); and representable as a virtual zone in a virtual domain; and representable as an entry within a database or data table (see para. [0024]).
As to claim 13, in view of claim 1, Cao teaches further comprising at least one of engaging and/or communicating with another actor, securing the zone, and modifying the variables of the zone (see para. [0023] “…email address, a social network page…”).
As to claim 15, in view of claim 1, Cao teaches further comprising receiving a reply transmission from the at least one other actor (O.sub.2) within the domain, said reply transmission enabling the first actor to determine the presence and/or non-presence of said at least one other actor (see para. [0022]).
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) 8-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, in view of Somani et al. (US 2017/0301160) hereinafter Sommani.
As to claim 8, in view of claim 2, Cao does not teach but Sommani teaches wherein the at least one transmission and/or the at least one further transmission contains an indicator, wherein said indicator informs the recipient of at least one of the level of access, presence and/or purpose of the first actor in relation to at least one of the zone (Z), the domain (D), the sub-domain (sD) and the sub-zone (sZ) (see para. [0061] “One example of a unique ID calculation function for either tap-based detection or triangulation-based detection is: Unique ID=[Pre-defined Unique ID Part]+[Location]+[Sub location]+[Row]. In other examples, mathematical functions, such as a conventional hash function, RSA, etc., are employed that use these three values along with other values, to derive the unique ID or IDs. In other examples, mathematical functions can be used to determine these three values, which in turn become input to other mathematical functions to derive the unique ID or IDs. The input values may include current time, location, sub-location, row, sequence, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Cao and Somani before him or her, to modify the scheme of Cao by including Somani. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to validate the user’s allowed access level based on the unique IDs from broadcasted beacon messages, as briefly discussed in Somni, para. [0031]-[0032], and [0063].
As to claim 9, in view of claim 2, Cao does not explicitly teach but Somin teaches wherein the at least one transmission and/or the at least one further transmission comprises h(R.sub.1|p) and/or h(R.sub.1|q), wherein h represents a hash function applied to the at least one transmission and/or the at least one further transmission R1 is the identifier of the zone (Z), the domain (D), the sub-domain (sD) or the sub-zone (sZ) in which the first actor is present, and |p and |q are indicators concatenated with the zone identified that that inform the recipient of at least one of the level of access, presence and/or purpose of the first actor in relation to the zone (see para. [0061] “One example of a unique ID calculation function for either tap-based detection or triangulation-based detection is: Unique ID=[Pre-defined Unique ID Part]+[Location]+[Sub location]+[Row]. In other examples, mathematical functions, such as a conventional hash function, RSA, etc., are employed that use these three values along with other values, to derive the unique ID or IDs. In other examples, mathematical functions can be used to determine these three values, which in turn become input to other mathematical functions to derive the unique ID or IDs. The input values may include current time, location, sub-location, row, sequence, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Cao and Somani before him or her, to modify the scheme of Cao by including Somani. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to validate the user’s allowed access level based on the unique IDs from broadcasted beacon messages, as briefly discussed in Somni, para. [0031]-[0032], and [0063].
As to claim 11, in view of claim 4, Cao does not teach but Somani teaches wherein the zone (Z), the domain (D), the sub-domain (sD) or the sub-zone (sZ): comprises functionality and/or variables; and/or is controlled by a program representing the zone (see para. [0063] “The decision of whether the user is validated is communicated to the user, such as through a display connected to the zone computer or through the mobile device. For example, the zone computer may send information to the validation and enforcement application related to the validation decision and/or the user's account (e.g., new balance, transaction summary, etc.). The validation and enforcement application may communicate the decision to the user using inbuilt features like haptic feedback, audio notification, visual notification, etc., based on user's preferences.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Cao and Somani before him or her, to modify the scheme of Cao by including Somani. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to validate the user’s allowed access level based on the unique IDs from broadcasted beacon messages, as briefly discussed in Somni, para. [0031]-[0032], and [0063].
Claim(s) 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, in view of Mondello et al. (US 11,962,701 B2) hereinafter Mondello.
As to claim 12, in view of claim 2, Cao does not teach but Mondello teaches wherein the domain (D) is at least one of (i) a distributed data structure, and/or (ii) configured on a distributed ledger (see claim 10 “10. A system comprising: a database configured to store a distributed ledger in which a set of authorized identities is stored as part of a blockchain; at least one processor; and memory containing instructions configured to instruct the at least one processor to: compare an identity of a vehicle approaching a trust zone with a set of authorized identities stored in memory, wherein the trust zone is a geographic region corresponding to an electromagnetic field provided by one or more antennae of access servers in a proximity of the trust zone; based on comparing the identity of the vehicle with the set of authorized identities, determine that the vehicle is authorized to enter the trust zone; after the vehicle enters the trust zone, monitor activities of the vehicle; store a log of the monitored activities in the database; detect, based on the monitoring, a security risk associated with the vehicle, wherein detecting the security risk comprises an access server comparing the identity of the vehicle to the database configured to store the distributed ledger; and in response to detecting the security risk, send a new device secret to the vehicle, wherein the new device secret is associated with the authorization of the vehicle to enter the trust zone, and wherein the vehicle is configured to, in response to receiving the new device secret, store the new device secret in memory of the vehicle.”; It is noted that the access server located in a trusted zone stores a distributed ledger in which a set of authorized identities as a part of blockchain and based on the comparison of the identity communicated to the assess server it is determined that if the vehicle sending the unique identity is an authorized vehicle to enter the trusted zone.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Cao and Mondello before him or her, to modify the scheme of Cao by including Mondello. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to verify, by an access server at a gate of the trust zone and using the identifier received from an approaching vehicle, the identity of the vehicle by comparing the identity of the vehicle with a set of authorized identities stored in a database at the access server for the authorization of vehicle into the trusted zone.
As to claim 14, in view of claim 1, Cao does not explicitly teach but Mondello teaches wherein the operation and/or the variables of each zone and/or the domain is recorded, at least in part, on at least one of: a database, and a blockchain ledger (see claim 10 “10. A system comprising: a database configured to store a distributed ledger in which a set of authorized identities is stored as part of a blockchain; at least one processor; and memory containing instructions configured to instruct the at least one processor to: compare an identity of a vehicle approaching a trust zone with a set of authorized identities stored in memory, wherein the trust zone is a geographic region corresponding to an electromagnetic field provided by one or more antennae of access servers in a proximity of the trust zone; based on comparing the identity of the vehicle with the set of authorized identities, determine that the vehicle is authorized to enter the trust zone; after the vehicle enters the trust zone, monitor activities of the vehicle; store a log of the monitored activities in the database; detect, based on the monitoring, a security risk associated with the vehicle, wherein detecting the security risk comprises an access server comparing the identity of the vehicle to the database configured to store the distributed ledger; and in response to detecting the security risk, send a new device secret to the vehicle, wherein the new device secret is associated with the authorization of the vehicle to enter the trust zone, and wherein the vehicle is configured to, in response to receiving the new device secret, store the new device secret in memory of the vehicle.”; It is noted that the access server located in a trusted zone stores a distributed ledger in which a set of authorized identities as a part of blockchain and based on the comparison of the identity communicated to the assess server it is determined that if the vehicle sending the unique identity is an authorized vehicle to enter the trusted zone.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Cao and Mondello before him or her, to modify the scheme of Cao by including Mondello. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to verify, by an access server at a gate of the trust zone and using the identifier received from an approaching vehicle, the identity of the vehicle by comparing the identity of the vehicle with a set of authorized identities stored in a database at the access server for the authorization of vehicle into the trusted zone.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, in view of Opsenica et al. (US 2022/0210160 A1) hereinafter Opsenica.
As to claim 12, in view of claim 2, Cao does not teach but Opsenica teaches further comprising broadcasting a commitment to all actors in the domain (D), said commitment representing the identity of the first actor (O.sub.n), and upon determining the presence of the at least another actor (O.sub.2), providing proof of the commitment, and establishing secure communication with the at least one other actor (see Fig. 6 and corresponding paragraph [0129] “[0129] FIG. 6 provides a more detailed illustration of negotiation and implementation of a resource sharing transaction. A system on a first mobile entity 602 sends data to its digital representative 604. On the basis of this data, the digital representative 604 determines that resource sharing will be required by its system, for example in the form of provision of network connectivity for data transfer during a period in which the system will not be able to access the network. The digital representative 604 therefore performs discovery of cooperating systems and negotiates a resource sharing transaction, for example within the context of an existing smart contract held in distributed storage. This negotiation between the digital representatives is illustrated at 612. The digital representative 604 prepares information concerning the negotiated transaction and the digital representative 606 of the cooperating system that will provide the resources. This information may be exchanged as part of the negotiation 612, or a separate segment of data exchange may be performed between the digital representatives 604, 606 over a secure channel negotiated during the transaction negotiation 612. Information about the negotiated transaction is returned by the digital representative 604 to its system. On encountering the cooperating system on mobile entity 608, the system on entity 602 provides information on the negotiated transaction, which information is verified by the cooperating system with its own digital representative 606. In another example, the cooperating system may verify the information locally, for example based on an authorisation of the information by its digital representative 606. The digital representative 606 may have authorised the information by signing the information with a credential. Once the transaction has been verified, resource sharing may take place, illustrated in FIG. 6 as data exchange. The cooperating system may then transfer the data it has received from the system on mobile entity 602 to its digital representative 606, which data may then be forwarded by the digital representative 606 to a central aggregation function 610, and/or to the digital representative of the system on mobile entity 602. In this manner, data from the system on mobile entity 602 may be provided to functions in the cloud even when the system itself has no network connectivity, owing to the sharing of resources available to a cooperating system.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Cao and Opsenica before him or her, to modify the scheme of Cao by including Opsenica. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to share a network resource from one entity between two authorized mobile entities within the same domain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE K SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3260. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7291.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HEE K SONG/PRIMARY Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights