Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to communications received on 04/27/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 10-11, 15 and 19-20 were amended.
Claims 7 and 16 were canceled.
Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 1-6,8-15 and 17-22 are pending.
Response to arguments
With respect to the first argument, the argument was persuasive, amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
With respect to second argument the argument is not persuasive there is a beacon identifier associated with location identifier which determines security level as mapped in the office action below and taught by the prior art.
With respect to third argument, the argument was persuasive, amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
With respect to the fourth argument, the argument is not persuasive because the movement is implicitly over time when a user moves from one area to another, it could be the same ATM at a later time or a different ATM for the same entity/identity. Furthermore, 5:39-62 teach using different broadcast radius for different locations. Finally, the rejection is now a 103 rejection so anticipation argument is no longer applicable.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 18-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vltavsky et al. (US 10154372 B1) hereinafter referred to as Vltavsky in view of Gutierrez et al. (US 20220276729 A1) hereinafter referred to as Gutierrez.
With respect to claim 20, Vltavsky discloses: A mobile device, containing: a processor; a memory that stores instructions executable by the processor; (Vltavsky Fig. 1 user device 112).
a radio receiver configured to receive direct-path signals from a transmitter for each time in a sequence of times, (Vltavsky Fig. 1 user device receive direct unobstructed reflections [direct-path signals] from beacons 114 [transmitters] over time, see Vltavsky Abstract).
the instructions being configured to cause the processor: to perform or prompt determination of a reflection pattern for each time in the sequence of times based on the received reflections;(Vltavsky Abstract “Based on the identifier of the beacon detected by the smartphone, the smartphone application communicates with a backend server to receive location-specific information based on the identifier of the detected beacon”. Vltavsky col 6:30-45 “the authentication level associated with the first beacon 402 varies based on a user history. For example, in some arrangements, the backend system 106 stores user history information (e.g., which ATMs/branches the user visits, how often the user visits certain areas, visit patterns, etc.).”)
to perform or prompt determination of a position for each time in the sequence of times of the mobile device based on the (Vltavsky 6:30-45 teaches using detection pattern and comparing current times positions to prior times positions history)
to perform or prompt determination of the movement pattern from reference movement patterns; and to assign a security level of the mobile device based on the movement pattern. (Vltavsky 6:30-45 “In other arrangements, the authentication level associated with the first beacon 402 varies based on a user history. For example, in some arrangements, the backend system 106 stores user history information (e.g., which ATMs/branches the user visits, how often the user visits certain areas, visit patterns, etc.).” and Vltavsky 12:5-15 teaches “the user moves throughout the branch and provides input into the rendered user interface. Accordingly, if a second beacon identifier is received at the user device and transmitted to the backend system, a second user interface and second authentication level is transmitted back to the device. The method 800 repeats for each new beacon identifier received by the user device.”).
Vltavsky does not explicitly disclose: the reflections being time-delayed relative to the direct-path signals;
However, Gutierrez in an analogous art discloses: a radio receiver configured to receive reflections of radio pulses from a transmitter for each time in a sequence of times, the reflections being time-delayed relative to the direct-path signals; (Gutierrez Fig. 1 illustrates reflection signals transmission and receiving of data signals between device and beacon sensors; wherein Gutierrez ¶33 teaches reducing or eliminating time delay between signal pulses and moving device over time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflections taught by Vltavsky the reflections being time-delayed relative to the direct-path signals as taught by Gutierrez to account for delay in transmission and improve user experience (see Gutierrez ¶33).
With respect to claims 1 and 11 the claims recite a device and a method respectively. While they might have slight difference in language they recite the same matter as claim 20 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 2, Vltavsky discloses: The mobile device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the assigned security level is a highest security level from a plurality of different security levels; and wherein the processor is further configured to grant full access to the mobile device or a facility coupled to the mobile device. (Vltavsky col 6 lines 30-45 “if the ATM associated with the first beacon 402 is an ATM the user typically visits, the second authentication level may be lower than the first authentication level.” Therefore, the user is assigned the highest level of the plurality of security levels with full access to mobile banking services).
With respect to claims 12 the claim recites a method and while it might have slight difference in language it recites the same matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 3, Vltavsky discloses: The mobile device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the assigned security level is a medium security level from a plurality of different security levels; and wherein the processor is further configured to grant limited access to the mobile device or a facility coupled to the mobile device. (In comparison to Vltavsky col 6 lines 30-45, the rest of col 6 line 46 to col 7 line 6 teach a third authentication level wherein one level is highest another is middle with lesser access and a third level with even less or no access).
With respect to claims 13 the claim recites a method and while it might have slight difference in language it recites the same matter as claim 3 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 4, Vltavsky discloses: The mobile device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the assigned security level is a lowest security level from a plurality of different security levels; and wherein the processor is further configured to request an additional authentication for access to the mobile device or a facility coupled to the mobile device. (In comparison to Vltavsky col 6 lines 30-45, the rest of col 6 line 46 to col 7 line 6 teach a third authentication level wherein one level is highest another is middle with lesser access and a third level with even less or no access and more authentication steps would be required with lower level such as “the user may be required to enter the user's account PIN instead of having to enter both a username and password.”).
With respect to claims 14 the claim recites a method and while it might have slight difference in language it recites the same matter as claim 4 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 6, Vltavsky discloses: The mobile device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determination of the reflection pattern further comprises distinction of the reflections from reflections of a subsequent radio pulse. (Vltavsky col 4 lines 15-36 each beacon has a unique identifier so that each reflection is distinct from a reflection of a prior beacon).
With respect to claim 9, Vltavsky discloses: The mobile device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one reference reflection pattern is stored in a database; and wherein the classification comprises comparison of the reflection pattern with the at least one reference reflection pattern. (Vltavsky col 6 lines 30-45 using history patterns stored in a database (Vltavsky 2:59-62 and 4:25-35) and comparing with current beacon location reflection to classify authentication level).
With respect to claims 18 the claim recites a method and while it might have slight difference in language it recites the same matter as claim 9 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 19, Vltavsky discloses: The method as claimed in claim 11, further comprising: transmitting the first radio pulse by means of the mobile device that receives the first reflections, or transmitting a request to transmit an external radio pulse to an external radio transmitter by means of the mobile device. (Vltavsky Fig. 1 illustrates mobile device receiving the reflections and communication with external radio transmitters).
With respect to claim 22, Vltavsky in view of Gutierrez disclose: The method as claimed in claim 11, further comprising: receiving a second direct-path signal and second reflections of a second radio pulse from the transmitter after the first radio pulse, the second direct-path signal being time-delayed relative to the first reflections, and the second reflections being time- delayed relative to the second direct-path signal; (Gutierrez Fig. 1 illustrates multiple signals received by device from transmitter and viceversa. Then in Gutierrez ¶33 teaches there is perceived time-delay between device movement and movement tracking by the sensors).
determining an average of the first reflections and the second reflections; (Gutierrez ¶33 “a plurality of most recent samples (e.g., 2-10 most recent samples) are collected and a mean or median [average] function is applied to the plurality of samples”)
and determining the reflection pattern based on the average of the first reflections and the second reflections, wherein the average of the first reflections and the second reflections is determined with a sliding window. (Gutierrez ¶33 “a sliding window of a plurality of most recent samples [pattern] (e.g., 2-10 most recent samples) are collected and a mean or median function is applied [average] to the plurality of samples, with the resultant value being the newest tracked location of the stylus device”)
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vltavsky and Gutierrez as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 18-20 and 22 above, and further in view of O'Connor et al. (US 10236978 B2) hereinafter referred to as O'Connor.
With respect to claim 5, Vltavsky discloses: The mobile device as claimed in claim 1,
Vltavsky does not explicitly disclose: wherein the determination of the reflection pattern comprises time-resolved measurement of intensities of the reflections.
However, O’Connor in an analogous art discloses: wherein the determination of the reflection pattern comprises time-resolved measurement of intensities of the reflections. (O'Connor 51:13-35 “The sensors in the exemplary encoded light signature lighting and detection system generally measure total light intensity versus time and resolve the individual contribution of lights by measuring the amplitude of the carrier signa … and acting upon the measured intensity information may be realized, including hand-held units”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vltavsky wherein the determination of the reflection pattern comprises time-resolved measurement of intensities of the reflections as disclosed by O’Connor because it is a common and known measurement in the art (O'Connor 51:13-35).
With respect to claims 15 the claim recites a method and while it might have slight difference in language it recites the same matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vltavsky and Gutierrez as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 18-20 and 22 above, and further in view of Batni (US 12457220 B2) hereinafter referred to as Batni.
With respect to claim 8, Vltavsky discloses: The mobile device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the classification comprises implementation of a machine learning model using training data, the training data being formed by the at least one previously detected reference reflection pattern. (Vltavsky col 6 lines 30-45 using history as training data of previous pattern of device with respect to beacons).
Vltavsky does not explicitly disclose: wherein the classification comprises implementation of a machine learning model using training data, the training data being formed by the at least one previously detected reference reflection pattern and “a respective assigned security level from a plurality of security levels”.
wherein the classification comprises implementation of a machine learning model using training data, the training data being formed by the at least one previously detected reference reflection pattern and a respective assigned security level from a plurality of security levels. (Batni Fig. 4 step 440 explains classifying user based on user location from an Access Point (AP) based on prior location access pattern and predict the access type and associated access level policies. See full explanation in Batni 14:5-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beacon reflection taught by Vltavsky wherein the classification comprises implementation of a machine learning model using training data, the training data being formed by the at least one previously detected reference location reflection pattern with respect to an access point and a respective assigned security level from a plurality of security levels as taught by Batni to allow for anticipatory actions by an artificial intelligent enabled system (see Batni Fig. 4).
With respect to claims 17 the claim recites a method and while it might have slight difference in language it recites the same matter as claim 8 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vltavsky and Gutierrez as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 18-20 and 22 above, and further in view of Beckman (US 20220132318 A1) hereinafter referred to as Beckman.
With respect to claim 10, Vltavsky discloses: The mobile device as claimed in claim 9, wherein each reference reflection pattern of the at least one reference reflection pattern has an assigned security level; (Vltavsky 6:30-45 “authentication level associated with the first beacon 402 varies based on a user history. For example, in some arrangements, the backend system 106 stores user history information (e.g., which ATMs/branches the user visits, how often the user visits certain areas, visit patterns, etc.).”).
and wherein the assignment of a security level of the mobile device comprises: when the reflection pattern matches one of the at least one reference reflection pattern, assignment of the security level of the matching reference reflection pattern to the reflection pattern; (Vltavsky 6:15-45 teach using pattern of locations to beacons to assign security level).
Vltavsky does not explicitly disclose: and when a result of the comparison is that there is no matching reference reflection pattern, assignment of a lowest security level to the reflection pattern.
However, Beckman in an analogous art discloses: and when a result of the comparison is that there is no matching reference reflection pattern, assignment of a lowest security level to the reflection pattern. (Beckman ¶87 “physical location sensors, to determine that a user (such as mailman 1607) is located within outdoor wireless network area 1603, and, through programming associating that physical location as indicative of visitors to the property (but not necessarily greatly trusted users), the control system so designates and assigns such a lowest level of access.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vltavsky and when a result of the comparison is that there is no matching reference reflection pattern, assignment of a lowest security level to the reflection pattern as disclosed by Beckman to have a default lowest access level to reduce chances of giving the wrong access level to an entity that should not have it (see Beckman ¶87).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vltavsky and Gutierrez as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 18-20 and 22 above, and further in view of Godecker (US 5544171 A) hereinafter referred to as Godecker.
With respect to claim 21, Vltavsky in view of Gutierrez disclose: The mobile device as claimed in claim 1,
Vltavsky in view of Gutierrez do not explicitly disclose: wherein the radio pulse is one of a sequence of radio pulses, and wherein each radio pulse in the sequence of radio pulses does not overlap with a subsequent radio pulse in the sequence of radio pulses.
However, Godecker in an analogous art discloses: wherein the radio pulse is one of a sequence of radio pulses, and wherein each radio pulse in the sequence of radio pulses does not overlap with a subsequent radio pulse in the sequence of radio pulses. (Godecker 3:25-50 “As a function of their respective distance from the fixed base station BTS, the mobile stations transmit in advance of a time interval (timing advance), so that, when received by the fixed base station, the TDMA radio pulses are arranged without overlapping in the sequence of the time slots, and compensate for the signal propagation time within the radio cell C.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflections taught by Vltavsk and Gutierrez wherein the radio pulse is one of a sequence of radio pulses, and wherein each radio pulse in the sequence of radio pulses does not overlap with a subsequent radio pulse in the sequence of radio pulses as disclosed by Godecker to compensate for the signal propagation time within the radio cell (see Godecker 3:25-50).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights