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 09/23/2024.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vltavsky et al. (US 10154372 B1) hereinafter referred to as Vltavsky.
With respect to claim 1, 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 reflections of a radio pulse; (Vltavsky Fig. 1 user device receive reflections from beacons 114, see Vltavsky Abstract).
the instructions being configured to cause the processor: to perform or prompt determination of a reflection pattern 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 lines 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 undertake or prompt classification of a position that the mobile device is in on the basis of the determined reflection pattern and at least one previously detected reference reflection pattern; (as mapped in the prior limitation Vltavsky col 6 lines 30-45 teaches using detection pattern and comparing current position to prior positions history with respect to ).
and to assign a security level of the mobile device based on the classification of the position. (Vltavsky col 6 lines 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.).”).
With respect to claims 11 the claim recites a method and while it might have slight difference in language it recites the same matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites a mobile device with position detection on the mobile device that is not that different from what is recited in claim 1 except it does not perform the step of assigning the security level as claim 1. The claim is rejected based on similar rationale for matter that is taught by Vltavsky
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 claims 16 the claim recites a method and while it might have slight difference in language it recites the same matter as claim 6 and therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 7, Vltavsky discloses: The mobile device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reflection pattern is constant when the mobile device is temporarily stationary and a source of the radio pulse is stationary. (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 and if mobile device is not moving that means it is the same pulse).
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 radio pulse by means of the mobile device that receives the reflections, or transmitting a request to transmit a radio pulse to an external radio transmitter by means of the mobile device. (Vltavsky Fig. 1 illustrates mobile device receiving the reflections).
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) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vltavsky as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 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 as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 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 as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 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 reference reflection patterns, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ravi et al. (US 20090085743 A1) Abstract teaches “A system includes multiple access ports (APs) defining multiple zones including an access level for the RF reader. The system also includes a switch configured to determine a present zone of the mobile RF reader and enabling the RF reader based on the access level of the present zone. Another system includes means for receiving a signal from an access port and means for determining a location of the RF reader based on the signal, the location associated with an access level.”.
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