DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-20, received 26 September 2024. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-20 is as follows:
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 January 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 14-16, 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190140697 A1, hereafter referred to as Yang) in view of Tang et al (US 20240187992 A1, hereafter referred to as Tang).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a first user device comprising:
a first transmitter (Yang [0046] teaches a second communication circuit to support wireless communication);
a second transmitter (Yang [0046] teaches a first communication circuit to support wireless communication);
a first receiver (Yang [0046] teaches a second communication circuit to support wireless communication);
a second receiver (Yang [0046] teaches a first communication circuit to support wireless communication); and
processing circuitry coupled to the first transmitter, the second transmitter, the first receiver, and the second receiver (Yang [0009] a processor connected with the first communication circuit and second communication circuit), the processing circuitry configured to:
establish a pass-through communication session with a second user device (Yang [0011, 0041, 0079] teaches establishing a wireless communication channel with a second electronic device); cause the second receiver to receive a transaction command from a reader (Yang [0064, 0046] teaches receiving from a first external device via the first communication circuit a first request wherein the first external device is a NFC reader);
cause the first transmitter to transmit the transaction command to the second user device via the pass-through communication session (Yang [0046] teaches in response to the first request, the second communication circuit transmits the first request to the second external electronic device);
cause the first receiver to receive a pass-through response from the second user device via the pass-through communication session (Yang [0046] teaches the second communication circuit receives a response that corresponds to the first request); and cause the second transmitter to transmit the pass-through response to the reader (Yang [0046] teaches the first communication circuit transmits a first response, corresponding to the first request and second response from the second external device).
However, Yang does not explicitly teach cause the first transmitter to broadcast an identifier.
Tang, in an analogous art, teaches cause the first transmitter to broadcast an identifier (Tang [0013] teaches a second application publishing a broadcast message wherein information including a UUID of the message sending end is compared [0119]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang in view of Tang in order to configure the first transmitter, as taught by Yang, to broadcast an identifier, as taught by Tang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to reduce internal memory occupation of a device, improve data processing efficiency of the device and reduce power consumption of the device (Tang [0009-0010]) while improving a processing rate (Tang [0014]) and user experience (Tang [0006, 0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Yang-Tang teaches the first user device wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the first receiver to receive a connection request from the second user device based on the identifier (Tang [0013] teaches sending a Bluetooth connection request after receiving the broadcast message).
Regarding claim 3, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Yang-Tang teaches the first user device wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine the second user device within a threshold distance (Tang [0119] teaches determining a device approaches a Bluetooth module and is subsequently within range [0127, 0137] based on a signal strength exceeding a threshold such that the distance is within a requirement threshold (Tang [0193]) or exceeding a working range [0121 and 0198]; and
establish the pass-through communication session based on the second user device being within the threshold distance (Tang [0193] teaches upon determining the device is within a distance requirement, sending the connection request).
Regarding claim 5, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Yang-Tang teaches the first user device wherein the pass-through communication session comprises a Bluetooth communication session (Yang [0063] teaches a connection between the first external device and the electronic device via Bluetooth wireless communication).
Regarding claim 11, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Yang-Tang teaches the first user device wherein the identifier comprises a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) (Tang [0104]) and wherein the UUID is 128-bit number (Tang [0104]).
Regarding claims 14-16, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 1, 2 and 5.
Therefore, claims 14-16 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1, 2 and 5.
Regarding claim 17, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 17, as rejected above.
Additionally, Yang-Tang teaches one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media wherein the transaction command comprises a request for credentials (Yang [0064-0066] teaches a request from the NFC reader as a request for payment [0064] or identity authentication [0066]), and wherein the pass-through response comprises an indication of the credentials (Yang [0064] teaches the response as a response to the particular request for transmission to the reader such that payment [0065] or identity authentication [0066] is provided in the response to the NFC reader [0074]).
Regarding claim 19, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 18, as rejected above.
Additionally, Yang-Tang teaches one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media wherein the indication comprises near field communication data (Yang [0105] teaches delivering payment data, or identity authentication data [0066] via the NFC chip which communicates with the NFC reader via NFC signals [0098]).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190140697 A1, hereafter referred to as Yang) in view of Tang et al (US 20240187992 A1, hereafter referred to as Tang) as applied above regarding claim 3, further in view of Frohman et al (US 20250111029 A1, hereafter referred to as Frohman).
Regarding claim 4, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 3, as rejected above.
However, Yang-Tang does not explicitly teach the first user device wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the second user device is within the threshold distance via Ultra-Wideband technology.
Frohman, in an analogous art, teaches the first user device wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the second user device is within the threshold distance via Ultra-Wideband technology (Frohman [0042] teaches using UWB to determine whether the device is within a threshold distance).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang-Tang in view of Frohman in order to configure the processing circuitry, as taught by Yang-Tang, to determine the second user device is within the threshold distance via Ultra-Wideband technology, as taught by Frohman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to more efficiently recognize and establish efficient communication using other wireless signals (Frohman [0024]) while optimizing speed, efficiency and reducing interference supporting a variety of applications and functionalities enhancing a user’s experience with the UWB signals (Frohman [0025]).
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190140697 A1, hereafter referred to as Yang) in view of Tang et al (US 20240187992 A1, hereafter referred to as Tang) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Choi et al (KR 20150001681 A1, hereafter referred to as Choi).
Regarding claim 9, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Yang-Tang does not explicitly teach the first user device wherein the first user device and the second user device are a part of a group, and wherein the group is associated with a group identification.
Choi, in an analogous art, teaches the first user device wherein the first user device and the second user device are a part of a group (Choi [0069] teaches participation in an already created group whereby a second and third device receive the beacon frame transmitted by the first electronic device of the group network [0078-0079]), and wherein the group is associated with a group identification (Choi [0076 and 0077] discloses the identification of a group network included in a broadcast frame).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang-Tang in view of Choi in order to configure the first and second user device, as taught by Yang-Tang, be part of a group wherein the group is associated with a group identification, as taught by Choi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to minimize connection time based on minimal user operations when performing a security connection between a plurality of electronic devices while improving user convenience and the usability of the electronic devices (Choi [Pg 5-Pg 6]).
Regarding claim 10, Yang-Tang-Choi teaches the limitations of claim 9, as rejected above.
Additionally, Yang-Tang-Choi teaches the first user device wherein the identifier is based on the group identification (Choi [0077] discloses an identifier of a group network included in a frame transmitted periodically).
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190140697 A1, hereafter referred to as Yang) in view of Tang et al (US 20240187992 A1, hereafter referred to as Tang) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Johnson et al (US 20180338035 A1, hereafter referred to as Johnson).
Regarding claim 12, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Yang-Tang does not explicitly teach the first user device wherein the processing circuitry is configured to establish the pass-through communication session with the second user device based on a contact list comprising the second user device.
Johnson, in an analogous art, teaches the first user device wherein the processing circuitry is configured to establish the pass-through communication session with the second user device based on a contact list comprising the second user device (Johnson [0009] teaches establishing a session between devices when determining whether a contact of the second device is on a list [0299-0301]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang-Tang in view of Johnson in order to configure the first user device, as taught by Yang-Tang, establish the pass-through communication session with the second user device based on a contact list comprising the second user device, as taught by Johnson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a faster more efficient method for communication reducing the cognitive burden on a user and produce a more efficient human-machine interface while conserving power and increasing the time between battery charges (Johnson [0006-0007]).
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190140697 A1, hereafter referred to as Yang) in view of Tang et al (US 20240187992 A1, hereafter referred to as Tang) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Ail et al (US 20140047048 A1, hereafter referred to as Ail).
Regarding claim 13, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Although Yang-Tang teaches the first user device (Yang [Fig 1-101]) configured to:
establish an pass-through communication session with a user device (Yang [0011, 0041, 0079] teaches establishing a wireless communication channel with a second electronic device); cause the second receiver to receive an transaction command from the reader (Yang [0163]); cause the first transmitter to transmit the transaction command to the third user device via the pass-through communication session (Yang [0164]); cause the first receiver to receive an pass-through response from the third user device (Yang [0165]); and cause the second transmitter to transmit the pass-through response to the reader (Yang [0166]).
However, Yang-Tang does not explicitly teach functionality applied to an additional-pass through communication session for an additional or third device.
Ail, in an analogous art, teaches establish an additional pass-through communication session with a third user device (Ail [0092-0093] teaches a first device (810-1) which communicate with the second and third devices); cause the second receiver to receive an additional transaction command from a device (Ail [0093] teaches the second and third devices each accessing the resource on the fourth device by sending a request to the first device); cause the first transmitter to transmit the additional transaction command to the third user device via the additional pass-through communication session (Ail [0093] teaches, in turn, requesting the resource from the fourth device); cause the first receiver to receive an additional pass-through response from the third user device (Ail [0093] teaches receiving the resource from the fourth device); and cause the second transmitter to transmit the additional pass-through response to the device (Ail [0093] teaches providing the resource to the second or third requesting device) such that Ail teaches the functionality of a request-response message relaying exchange via a bridge device applied to a second and third or additional pass-through communication session.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang-Tang in view of Ail in order to configure the functionality establishing a pass-through communication session and receiving and transmitting transaction command requests and responses between a reader and device, as taught by Yang-Tang, be included in an additional session with an additional or third device, as taught by Ail.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to enable devices to share resources via a third device to which the devices can connect to reliably when environmental factors prevent the devices from forming a reliable direct connection (Ail [0094]).
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 20190140697 A1, hereafter referred to as Yang) in view of Tang et al (US 20240187992 A1, hereafter referred to as Tang) as applied above regarding claim 17, further in view of Holman et al (US 20240147236 A1, hereafter referred to as Holman).
Regarding claim 20, Yang-Tang teaches the limitations of claim 17, as rejected above.
However, Yang-Tang does not explicitly teach the one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to establish the pass-through communication session with the user device via an Application Programming Interface.
Holman, in an analogous art, teaches the one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to establish the pass-through communication session with the user device via an Application Programming Interface (Holman [0035] teaches using an API to discover, request and connect directly to peer devices).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang-Tang in view of Johnson in order to cause the processing circuitry to establish the pass-through communication session with the user device via an Application Programming Interface, as taught by Holman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to authenticate a device in a manner that is processing and bandwidth efficient while limiting the sensitive data transmitted on an alternative path while reduce the burden on a user to enter and enqueue a device (Holman [0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pogorelik et al (US 20160183033 A1);
Lee et al (US 20140073252 A1);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights