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
This is a Non-Final Office action in response to communications received June 24, 2026. No Claims have been amended, added or canceled. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
e-Terminal Disclaimer
Applicant’s filed and approved e-Terminal Disclaimer is sufficient to overcome the Double Patenting rejection over Patent 12170904 (application 17/453266) set for the in previous office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10, 17 are 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.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. 2016/0112871 A1) in view of Gonzalez (U.S. 2018/0004983 A1) further in view of Yavuz et al. (U.S. 2019/0340381 A1) further in view of Aizono et al. (U.S. 2015/0051948 A1).
Claims 1, 8, and 15:
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, White discloses a method/user equipment/non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor at a private cellular network server, facilitate performance of operations (see White, fig. 7, 1210 ‘server’), comprising:
a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations (see White, fig. 2), the operations comprising
receiving, by a user equipment comprising a processor, departure data of the user equipment from a geographic area served via a private cellular network (see White, [0010] ‘when a device has entered or existed a specific area’; [0089] ‘cellular’; [0032] ‘a private network’);
in response to the determining the predicted departure; encrypting, by the user equipment, a user equipment parameter, resulting in an encrypted user equipment parameter (see White, [0047] ‘automatically encrypt or decrypt one or more file systems and attach one or more mount points based on one or more proximity signals,’; [0054] ‘The mobile device optionally saves changes or the entire state of the in-memory file system to an external server before exiting the enabled location.’; [0057] ‘In response to detection.. encrypt the file system… wipe the encryption key…’);
sending, by the user equipment, the encrypted user equipment parameter to a private cellular network server that is part of the private cellular network (see White, [0047] ‘automatically encrypt or decrypt one or more file systems and attach one or more mount points based on one or more proximity signals,’; [0049] ‘determines that it has left a particular enabled location… irrevocably removing all traces of any data that the application stored… transmit that changes made to the file system to a server so that they can be dynamically downloaded and loaded into memory on re-entrance into the enabled location’; [0054] ‘The mobile device optionally saves changes or the entire state of the in-memory file system to an external server before exiting the enabled location.’),
deleting, by the user equipment, the user equipment parameter from the user equipment (see White, [0011] ‘Upon leaving the zone, data communication is disabled and any data transferred to the device or used by the device may be automatically removed.’; [0049] ‘determines that it has left a particular enabled location… irrevocably removing all traces of any data that the application stored… transmit that changes made to the file system to a server so that they can be dynamically downloaded and loaded into memory on re-entrance into the enabled location’);
However, White does not disclose generating, by the user equipment, an encryption key that is local to the user equipment, wherein the encrypted user equipment parameter is sent to the private cellular network without the encryption key,
receiving, by the user equipment, a code generated by the private cellular network server; and storing, by the user equipment, the code for subsequent use by the user equipment in connection with re-acquiring the encrypted user equipment parameter from the private cellular network server as claimed.
However, Gonzalez teaches generating, by the user equipment, an encryption key that is local to the user equipment (The client terminal generates a unique random encryption code KEY_A to encrypt the user entered data, Therein, it is to be noted that the encryption key is never transmitted, 0048),
wherein the encrypted user equipment parameter is sent to the private cellular network without the encryption key (then sends the encrypted user-entered data to the remote storage server, wherein, it is to be noted that the encryption key is never transmitted, 0048),
receiving, by the user equipment, a code generated by the private cellular network server; storing, by the user equipment, the code for subsequent use by the user equipment in connection with re-acquiring the encrypted user equipment parameter from the private cellular network server (see Gonzales, abstract, ‘sending the user-entered data in the client terminal to a remote storage server; …retrieving the electronic data stored in the remote storage server by scanning said identification code.’; [0049] ‘S3:Once the remote storage server receives the encrypted user-entered data, it returns a unique storage code to the client terminal’; [0050] ‘S4: After the client terminal receives the storage code, it generates an identification code by combining this storage code and the encryption code KEY_A.’).
White and Gonzalez are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of private networks.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gonzalez into the system of White for receiving, by the user equipment, a code generated by the private cellular network server; and storing, by the user equipment, the code for subsequent use by the user equipment in connection with re-acquiring the encrypted user equipment parameter from the private cellular network server. White teaches "a method and system for restricting the access, storage, and transmission of information between devices within an enabled location.” (see White, [0008]). Therefore, Gonzalez’s teaching could enhance the system of White, because Gonzalez teaches “enhance the operation and the facilitation of data collection.” (see Gonzales, [0004])
Yavuz teaches without the encryption key (see Yavuz, [0030] ‘the trusted client computing device generates multiple symmetric encryption/decryption keys that are stored only in the memory of the trusted client computing device and are not shared with any of the server computing devices or other untrusted computing devices.’).
White, Gonzalez, and Yavuz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of private networks.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Yavuz into the system of White such that the encryption key is not provided to the private cellular network server. White teaches "a method and system for restricting the access, storage, and transmission of information between devices within an enabled location.” (see White, [0008]). Therefore, Yavuz’s teaching could enhance the system of White, because Yavuz discloses “This disclosure relates generally to the fields of information security,” (see Yavuz, [0002]).
White disclose the departure. However, White does not disclose the predicted departure as claimed.
Aizono teaches the predicted departure (see Aizono, [0098] ‘A pattern of leaving home in the morning and coming to--station for work.’)
White, Gonzalez, and Aizono et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of private networks.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Aizono into the system of White to use predicted departure. White teaches "a method and system for restricting the access, storage, and transmission of information between devices within an enabled location.” (see White, [0008]). Therefore, Aizono’s teaching could enhance the system of White, because Aizono discloses “methods and devices for classifying an analysis object using personal behavioral characteristics.” (see Aizono, [0001]).
Claims 2, 9, 16:
With respect to claims 2, 9, 16, the combination of White and Gonzales, Yavuz et al. and Aizono et al. discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, as addressed.
Gonzalez teaches providing, by the user equipment, the code to the private cellular network server in order to re-acquire the encrypted user equipment parameter (see Gonzales, abstract, ‘sending the user-entered data in the client terminal to a remote storage server; …retrieving the electronic data stored in the remote storage server by scanning said identification code.’; [0049] ‘S3:Once the remote storage server receives the encrypted user-entered data, it returns a unique storage code to the client terminal’; [0050] ‘S4: After the client terminal receives the storage code, it generates an identification code by combining this storage code and the encryption code KEY_A.’).
White and Gonzalez are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of private networks.
The motivation for combining White and Gonzalez is recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 4, 11, 18:
With respect to claims 4, 11, 18, the combination of White and Gonzales, Yavuz et al. and Aizono et al. discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, as addressed.
White discloses wherein the receiving the departure data comprises receiving the departure data from a private cellular network controller (see White, [0010] ‘when a device has entered or existed a specific area’; [0089] ‘cellular’; [0032] ‘a private network’).
Aizono teaches the predicted departure (see Aizono, [0098] ‘A pattern of leaving home in the morning and coming to--station for work.’)
White, Gonzalez, and Aizono et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of private networks.
The motivation for combining White and Gonzalez is recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 5, 12, 19 :
With respect to claims 5, 12, 19, the combination of White and Gonzales, Yavuz et al. and Aizono et al. discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, as addressed.
White discloses wherein the departure data from the private cellular network controller is based on a signal strength of the user equipment associated with the private cellular network (‘automatically encrypt or decrypt one or more file systems and attach one or more mount points based on one or more proximity signals, 0047) ([0081] ‘checks the signal strength’).
Claims 6, 13, 20:
With respect to claims 6, 13, 20, the combination of White and Gonzales, Yavuz et al. and Aizono et al. discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, as addressed.
White discloses wherein the user equipment parameter comprises network configuration data for the private cellular network ([0053] ‘configuration data’; [0060] ‘system configuration files’; [0063] ‘the network configuration’).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. 2016/0112871 A1) in view of Gonzalez (U.S. 2018/0004983 A1) further in view of Yavuz et al. (U.S. 2019/0340381 A1) further in view of Aizono et al. (U.S. 2015/0051948 A1) further in view of Puleston et al. (U.S. 2021/0352144 A1).
Claims 7, 14:
With respect to claims 7, 14, the combination of White and Gonzales, Yavuz et al. and Aizono et al. discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as addressed.
Neither White, Gonzalez, Yavuz et al. and Aizono et al. discloses wherein the storing the code is performed by an anti-cloning process executable by the user equipment as claimed.
However, Puleston et al. teaches wherein the storing the code is performed by an anti-cloning process executable by the user equipment (see Puleston, [0128] ‘anti-cloning’).
White, Gonzalez, Yavuz et al., Aizono et al., and Puleston et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of private networks.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Puleston et al. into the system of White to use anti-cloning process. White teaches "a method and system for restricting the access, storage, and transmission of information between devices within an enabled location.” (see White, [0008]). Therefore, Puleston’s teaching could enhance the system of White, because Puleston discloses “provided for organizing information collected and stored on or with respect to large fleets of asset, such as used in connection with the Internet of Things, with capabilities for providing improved intelligence and security in the local environment of an asset, in the network and in remote locations, such as in the cloud.” (see Puleston, [0021]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO Form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helai Salehi whose telephone number is 571-270-7468. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 9 am to 5 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, Jeff Pwu, can be reached on 571-272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/HELAI SALEHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights